Supreme Court Ruling On D.C. Handgun Ban

[joelayres]

I would probably agree that the framers believed individuals should all be able to have guns, but given the wording of the amendment and the drastically different environment today it is not clear what they would have us do. The additions of more advanced weapons and also of police officers make things much more complicated than they were 200 years ago.

You have raised a great point - things are drastically different today than 200 years ago.

200 years ago, there were no meth-heads roaming the streets looking for their next jolt and willing to do whatever it takes to get it - including harm anyone who trys to stop them.

200 years ago, horse thieves were hanged in the town square at high noon. (this was a good thing)

200 years ago, there were no drug cartels perpetrating home invasions.

200 years ago, most people were more worried about making a living for themselves than trying to steal what others had worked for.

200 years ago, our founding fathers crafted the Constitution after examining and experiencing life in their country(s) of origin so that this country would be a better place.

Today more than ever we need to be able to protect our own well being from those who would gladly take it from us.

[GodOfRhythm]

Now- It is possible that I have said things here that would be illegal in Belgium. I don't know. And Thank God Almighty, I don't have to care, because I live in a country unafraid of the free expression of the product of one's mind, a country that values debate, not a country that cowers for fear of being jailed for saying what's on it's mind.

WHAT?!

I have no time to go into debate right now, I will return tonight or tomorrow to debate. But that quote just leads me to believe you have quite a distorted view of Belgium or most European countries. I can say whatever I want about being islamophobe, bla bla. What I can NOT do, is treat people differently without an objective or proportionally justified reason. That would be discrimination and/or racism, depending on the underlying motive. What I also can not do, is encourage, rally or support other people making such infractions.

You preach to me on the subject of 'rule of law' and 'freedom', and you dare call me the self-righteous one. There is nothing more free about America than anything anywhere in Western-Europe.

You purposefully choose to interpret lack of legislation and regulation as freedom. No doubt you also interpret your relatively low tax-burden as another beacon of your freedom, while millions of your people ARE dying or WILL die, simply because they can not afford decent healthcare. Where are your human rights now? They are of a transcendent nature, accepting anything less makes them utterly futile and pointless.

Furthermore, don't you have the gall to lecture me on freedom of speech, which is something a lot of Americans seem to believe they have a monopoly on. An entire nation going apeshit over Janet Jackson showing a titty or having congressional hearings because a rapper rhymed the word 'gun' with 'fun', is the last place on earth I'll be looking for freedom of speech or mind.

As far as 'guns' are concerned, there is a clear two-fold process at work that is simply being unnoticed. It's a paradox, which by all signs, is being perversely used for political gain:

One of the main arguments I always hear is how criminals have guns and just, innocent civilians should have the right the defend themselves with the same fire-dispensing arms as the criminals. So failure, on both a national and a state level, to get crime rates and illegal guntrade under control is a prime breeding ground for fear among citizens and they in turn start encouraging gun proliferation as it is their 'right' and they feel the need to protect themselves. They in turn watch their politicians go to war on each other over this issue, in the end freedom to purchase firearms prevails, while no such thing would be needed if the elected bodies would have a decent strategy to deal with crime in the first place. That is without the citizens even realizing that gun proliferation is NOT the correct way to deal with crimes.

[Vass]

Well my friend, then we meet in the middle. Your view of America is horribly distorted. You know nothing of us. Perhaps it is true I know nothing of you. But I don't have hatred and contempt for you and yours, while judging by your earlier post, your distain for us is deep, visceral, and lasting.

I guess we can make this simple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Samuel

as just one example. I don't really want to get into a debate about what the guy said. Just simply answer this: Was the guy prosecuted because he said what he said? Yes or no?

Was the Vlaams Block (again, I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE THE MORAL RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS OF WHAT THEY STAND FOR), a political party of 1 million citizens, or 10% of Belgium's population, convicted of "racism"? What a convenient tool to use against political enemies in the future if they were. Simply make their words illegal! That will shut them up. Convicted, yes or no?

In America, if a political party said something stupid, we'd simply NOT VOTE FOR THEM. We wouldn't prosecute them. That's freedom- Freedom to choose.

Oh, and abortion? Many, many, many people are anti-abortion in this country. Psst. It's still legal, so I have no idea what you're complaining about. Do you want to make it ILLEGAL for them to be against it or something? Or just illegal for them to TALK about being against it?



Vass

[GodOfRhythm]

Well my friend, then we meet in the middle. Your view of America is horribly distorted. You know nothing of us. Perhaps it is true I know nothing of you. But I don't have hatred and contempt for you and yours, while judging by your earlier post, your distain for us is deep, visceral, and lasting.

Vass

I have no disdain for Americans at all. I love the US to a great degree, as do I most Americans I've been fortunate enough to meet and become friends with. What I disagree with is the policies being enforced in the US today and the blind nature wherewith they are defended. I call them as I see them. And reserving moral or qualitative judgement, it is simply a fact nowadays that your average US-citizen John Doe knows more about what Paris Hilton has been upto in the last couple of months than he does about principles of law, let alone moral and ethical imperatives. Saying such is more an expression of my great love for the country I've been watching so horribly decline over the years, than hatred towards them or their citizens, which is something, I honestly say, is something I do not have.

And, quite unnuanced, but correct, I will state: Take away guns and you take away the need for more guns. Look up the statistics for London police and guncrime rates once they took up on the decision to no longer have their officers wear firearms on the streets. It is not a full solution to the problem by any means, but it is one hell of a good start. Analogy wise I am not endorsing the view to take firearms away from police forces in the US, the opposite in fact. Make trained officials, hunters and government endorsed entities the only ones to legally be able to carry a gun.

I far from agree with all that happens in this country. Racism acts have been under constant scrutiny and are a hot-topic for debate. I will say that I have yet to see an individual get anything more than a symbolic sentence for simply STATING something racist. Father Samuel's statement was deemed to be racist and discriminatory. The 'inquisition agency' that prosecuted him can do so either under their own authority or after having charges brought to them by ANYONE in the country. This is virtually the same through all of Europe, since the inception of such institutions was and still is monitored and ordered by EU law and directives. Bring a KKK man to Fox news and let him say (verbatim): "fuck all these blacks, they are the only cause of all our trouble". Let's see the amount of fucking legal and non-legal crossfire he'll be caught in after that.

VLAAMS BLOK are a disgrace. The same right-wing movement is to be witnessed in virtually any EU country, not much differently from the States or other countries. Their voters consist mainly of low-schooled workers and disproportionally old and conservative voters. To say their is great intelligence present in their voter's body is like saying seawater is sweet. Which is, if you've been paying attention, the same issue I raised about the US. Ignorance and lack of education easily translates into extremist and one-dimensional, unnuanced views.

There was definitely a LARGE political element present in the actions undertaken against Vlaams Blok (and subsequent changes in party-funding laws). Not surprisingly so. I for one did not agree, I say give them a term in office, they will fuck up beyond belief. They base all of their political stamina on cheap, populistic arguments and have ZERO true stances on anything political, they even lack the basis of a concrete political plan to effectively put into practice if they were indeed to rise to power anytime in the future.

And forgive me, but eventhough I disagree with the nature of the actions taken against them, I for one am GLAD that the other parties did what they could to stop a NEO-NAZI (FACT!) party's rise to power. And they ARE racist. We get Vlaams Blok propaganda in the mail every month. Before their conviction they literally said: "be on the look out for n*ggers, brown people and anyone not of flemmish descent".


[let's see how much flak I catch for using the 'N' word, now take that to a national level and bestow upon it the status of a government-funded party, you'll have a vague idea of its impact]

[shreder13]

I have no disdain for Americans at all. I love the US to a great degree, as do I most Americans I've been fortunate enough to meet and become friends with. What I disagree with is the policies being enforced in the US today and the blind nature wherewith they are defended. I call them as I see them. And reserving moral or qualitative judgement, it is simply a fact nowadays that your average US-citizen John Doe knows more about what Paris Hilton has been upto in the last couple of months than he does about principles of law, let alone moral and ethical imperatives. Saying such is more an expression of my great love for the country I've been watching so horribly decline over the years, than hatred towards them or their citizens, which is something, I honestly say, is something I do not have.

And, quite unnuanced, but correct, I will state: Take away guns and you take away the need for more guns. Look up the statistics for London police and guncrime rates once they took up on the decision to no longer have their officers wear firearms on the streets. It is not a full solution to the problem by any means, but it is one hell of a good start. Analogy wise I am not endorsing the view to take firearms away from police forces in the US, the opposite in fact. Make trained officials, hunters and government endorsed entities the only ones to legally be able to carry a gun.

NO ONE cares about Paris Hilton exept the 1% of the population who buy those crap mags like TMZ.

[GodOfRhythm]

Furthermore, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I will state, in my 20 years of living I have only seen a gun a handful of times, WHILE IT WAS ON A POLICE OFFICER'S belt. I have NEVER heard of and/or experienced anyone in my extended family or group of friends get shot or be the victim of a guncrime. And I have perhaps heard of 2 or 3 gun related crimes in the news the past 2 weeks.

[joelayres]

This article is a good read:

An interview with
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws


Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?
John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.
Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.
Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.
Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.
Question: What is the basis for these numbers?
Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.
Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?
Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.
Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?
Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.
For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.
Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.
Question: Wouldn't allowing concealed weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become very hostile—screaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot each other in the heat of the moment?
Lott: During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.
Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won't more guns put more women at risk?
Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.
Question: Aren't you playing into people's fears and prejudices though? Don't politicians pass these shall-issue laws to mollify middle-class white suburbanites anxious about the encroachment of urban minority crime?
Lott: I won't speculate about motives, but the results tell a different story. High crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations have the greatest reductions in violent crime when citizens are legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.
Question: What about other countries? It's often argued that Britain, for instance, has a lower violent crime rate than the USA because guns are much harder to obtain and own.
Lott: The data analyzed in this book is from the USA. Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries, and to control for all the other differences across the legal systems and cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries.
Question: This is certainly controversial and there are certain to be counter-arguments from those who disagree with you. How will you respond to them?
Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is. All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you'll read the book carefully and develop an informed opinion.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

[Bengal]

Is it me or is listening to a European bitch about American policy just plain dumb?

Why waste your breath? Just trying to start a fight, I guess.

[GodOfRhythm]

This article is a good read:

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.
Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

For a man with his supposed credentials I can not imagine him saying something like this, without knowing full well the implications ANY apparent motive on his part would make. Knowing that:

How has the proportion of fatal gun crimes behaved in relation to the overall crime number. Secondly, he conveniently forgets to mention that, in legal economics, the longer such a policy is upheld, the greater the occurence of a phenomenon called 'outlaw behavior' is. Deterrent and repression is NOT the right way to handle crime...wake up.

And Bengal. I could care less if this was happening in the US, the UK, Belgium, Timbuktu or Japan. This debate goes straight to the heart of the most pressing issues in most 'civilized' countries today. My stance would not be any different were I talking about Belgium and guncontrol. The only variations in my opinion would be those based upon the apparent and proven, concrete, factual differences, which is the mainstay of any rational practical debate. It transcends national boundaries as a phenomenon, but is nationally bound only by its factual roots. It is only on those certain points that I target the US policies 'in se' as being American in nature, doing anything less would be paying disrespect to the issue at hand and would be ignorant. But as I said, on a whole fundamental legal, moral and social principles and my opinions on them are what I am discussing here.

[Bengal]

You know what I'd love to see? Bear with me on this.

I would love to see a study done of 2 men, both similar. Both live in the same place, have the same paying job. Have the same kinds of "stuff", ect.

But one has a gun and one doesn't. You'd have to follow them their whole life but I think it would be worth it.

See if the one with a gun is less of a victim of violent crime than the one without the gun.

See the criminals have no clue who's packing and who's not. Hasn't seem to slow them down so far.

The dude who broke into my house didn't know if I had a .357 Mag or a Wrist Rocket. Didn't stop him one bit.

[GodOfRhythm]

I got to go hit the shower, but in the meanwhile I will leave you to ponder (and flame/rip my ass to shreds over):

The two primary solutions, as inapplicable as they may be, to the crime epidemic are:

1) The abolition of social inequality and social injustice

2) (and unmistakenbly linked to number1: ) proper and unbiased education.

Both are totally independent from the fact this issue is being brought up in the US. What IS of the matter though, is that, coïncidentally, the US scores undeniably low marks on both. The effects are apparent, just like they would be in any other country or place on earth.

----

In reply to your last post, Bengal: You are right and raise a very interesting issue.

It WOULD however be more likely for the gun carrying citizen to be killed. A criminal faced with a citizen pointing a gun at him is not going to hesitate for one second. Paradoxally, because of the widespread gun ownership in America, the criminal's policy has most likely become 'shoot first, ask questions later', regardless of the other person carrying a weapon or not. Faced then with criminals who shoot first and ask questions later, a further cry is heard to defend the imperative right of free Americans to carry guns in order to protect themselves: "because, you know, the criminals just shoot without asking any questions". The point of no return...

[Vass]

I am not sure how you square "I love America and all the Americans I have met" with your earlier statement that 70% of Americans are idiots.

Even in your last long post, you state that America is great but that we know more about Paris Hilton than we do about the law. That is patently absurd and insulting. Again, how you can say you love America I do not know.

I know no one who has been a victim of firearm related violence. Not one. And I live in Jersey City, NJ, a very, very urban area. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I can't think of a single gun crime story I've seen either. Doesn't mean they haven't happened either. I don't find this solopsystic metric to be a helpful one.

Re: KKK on FoxNews- You are right on one count- He, and Fox, would take one hell of a hit from the public- Fox would lose advertisers, people would stop watching. That would be their punishment. They would not, however, be taken off to jail, except for dropping an F-bomb. We believe in a marketplace of ideas. The idea that the KKK guy is selling would not be one that found many buyers. The problem would take care of itself.

Do you see the distinction? Ideas are rejected by fellow citizens. They are not criminalized by government.

As far as "get rid of the guns get rid of the problem", I suppose you assign some totemic value to weapons generally. But it is not the weapons, it is humans who are the problem. Few are the murders saying, "I would kill them, but only with a gun, I don't have a gun, so forget it".

You are also forgetting the true reason for the 2nd Amendment. If you need to know what that is, just remember that the Jews were disarmed in 1939.

As I mentioned, I know nothing about Vlaams Block other than the fact that they were prosecuted. That would not happen here. Nobody would vote for them, and they'd fade away, and that would be the end of that.

Just remember- Today Vlaams Block is repressed by the government. Tomorrow, the next "most extreme", then the next, then the next. One day it will be a party with which you agree. In the end, the only belief system that will be acceptable is the one that is currently in power. I'm sorry, I'd rather suffer the crackpots than suffer under a boot of "onethought".

And as an aside, while trying not to go ad hominem- Look how you talk about the Vlaam Block or whatever's voters- Old, conservative, stupid. Their opinions are repugnant and therefore do not matter. That is horrifying. Truly horrifying. Stupid, lacking in intellegence. Sounds so familiar. Sounds so very familiar.


Vass

[joelayres]

Ted Nugent: Gun-free zone is mass murderer's dream

Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh?
Try these on for size:
Columbine High School. Gun-free zone. New York City pizza shop. Gun-free zone. Pearl (Miss.) High School. Gun-free zone. Luby's Cafeteria. Gun-free zone. The Amish school in Pennsylvania. Gun-free zone.
Virginia Tech University. Gun-free zone.
Anybody see what the evil Sarah Brady and her denial-infested gun-banning cult have created?
I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real quick to this fact: The brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time. I've about had enough of it.
Conversely, at a Salt Lake City shopping mall, as occurs every day in varying degrees in this country, this happened:
An American citizen with a gun in his belt stopped a man from killing more innocent victims.
Trust in gun owners. In the 1998 school shooting in Springfield, Ore., a high schooler and hunter familiar with firearms was able to know when the student gunman was attempting to reload his .22 rifle.
He made the tactical decision to tackle the shooter and bring the unfolding rampage to an abrupt end.
A few years back, a Pennsylvania teacher retrieved his legally-owned Colt .45 and stopped a Columbine-style wannabe from wreaking havoc and murder at his school.
My hero, Suzanne Gracia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day years ago. Due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness, she could do nothing to stop satanic George Henard from slaughtering helpless innocents for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel-good" politics.
As a state representative, Hupp led the charge for a concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil.
Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady campaign insisting on continuing the proven gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into helplessness.
No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions, or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime in Oklahoma City.
No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffery Dahmer drugged, mutilated and cannibalized his victims.
Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims makes evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.
Already the Sarah Brady campaign of spinelessness is cavorting like a chicken with its tiny head chopped off — political hay to be made over the Virginia Tech horrors.
In fact, it is gun-controllers' own policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of thirty-two students in that "gun-free zone."
Thirty-two dead, on a college campus pursuing the American Dream, mowed down over an extended period of time by a lone non-American gunman, in defiance of our "zero tolerance" gun laws. Feel better yet?
Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness?
People who tromp on the Second Amendment, that's who. They are people who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend one's self and one's loved ones.
By their reasoning, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism; water causes drownings; forks and spoons cause obesity.
They believe that dialing 9-1-1 will somehow save your life when faced with a killer.
For them, the greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.
Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts. Demand an upgrade of citizens' abilities to defend themselves. Be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine.
Eliminate the insanity of "gun-free zones." They will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good-guy gun-free zones. That is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial.
I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

[Vass]

I got to go hit the shower, but in the meanwhile I will leave you to ponder (and flame/rip my ass to shreds over):

The two primary solutions, as inapplicable as they may be, to the crime epidemic are:

1) The abolition of social inequality and social injustice

2) (and unmistakenbly linked to number1: ) proper and unbiased education.

Both are totally independent from the fact this issue is being brought up in the US. What IS of the matter though, is that, coïncidentally, the US scores undeniably low marks on both. The effects are apparent, just like they would be in any other country or place on earth.

----

In reply to your last post, Bengal: You are right and raise a very interesting issue.

It WOULD however be more likely for the gun carrying citizen to be killed. A criminal faced with a citizen pointing a gun at him is not going to hesitate for one second. Paradoxally, because of the widespread gun ownership in America, the criminal's policy has most likely become 'shoot first, ask questions later', regardless of the other person carrying a weapon or not. Faced then with criminals who shoot first and ask questions later, a further cry is heard to defend the imperative right of free Americans to carry guns in order to protect themselves: "because, you know, the criminals just shoot without asking any questions". The point of no return...

First, I see now you advocate socialism, and "right" education. Your idea of right & mine would differ, of this I am sure.

As far as "score low on tests", I'm sorry. I do not see too many Americans leaving the United States to be educated in European universities. Some may do a semester away, but not much more than that. Every school in this country is absolutely crawling with foreigners.

They didn't come here because we suck.

In fact....again, I appologize for the ad hominem, but.....are you here? I got the impression in a previous post that you were....why?

And finally, you're doing a little "Let's play pretend! I'm going to say that people that legally carry guns for self defence are more likely to be injured in a crime!" Sorry, you don't get to just give a completely unsubstantiated opinion and have it treated as fact. I believe that people that play ESP guitars are more likely to fall down the stairs. Doesn't make that belief worth anything.

EDIT- Crime epidemic? Where? Crime generally has been falling dramatically over the last 20 years in this country.


Vass

[Bengal]

The only way gun ownership will lower crime is to wear the gun on your belt like a cop. If every criminal knew at a glance that someone was packing, that might reduce crime. Might.

But the reward is worth the risk to criminals. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't. So they don't care one iota if the homeowner/victim is packing. They want the shit and they want it now.

But maybe, just maybe, we could put a dent in it if everyone had a side holster with a subnosed .38 in it.

But that's not a country I want to live in. I have a problem with the military presense at every airport. Don't see that shit in Europe. So if we go that route, I might be France bound to live with my buddy Johnnie Depp.