previous post next post  

All right already! Back off the emails!

By The Armorer on December 8, 2005 | | Comments (49) | TrackBacks (1)

Sheesh! The Canadians (less CAPT H) are pinging me about the Liberal Party leader's proposal for a handgun ban in Canada.

Heh. File under "Oops I did it again!"

Alan of GENX@40 opened fire with this:

You know it is pretty hard to just slam them as liberals when they call themselves iberals: Martin set to promise tighter controls on handguns in bid to fight urban crime.

Being busy, I responded:

Heh. My only comment is that it's never worked anywhere else, but it will make them feel good.

Alan returned fire with:

Not to be snarky at all but how did the handgun ban not work in the UK? Is there any stats you are aware of? My interest is in writing about the topic not arguming so anything you are aware of would be useful.

Alan

And now Damian Brooks of Babbling Brooks jumps on me, too.

What? The Canadian Prime Minister proposes to ban handguns, and you have no posted opinion? I was expecting my favourite purveyor of gun-porn to blast the idea with both barrels.

Okay, I have an opinion. I sent it to Alan and to Damian.

It's a longish screed, so I'll put it beneath the fold, in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry.

Me:

Firearms violence increased in the UK after the ban. I don't believe the ban per se really had that much to do with the increase, as Brits were pretty well disarmed in their homes by law and custom already - hence Blighty being the Home Invasion capital of the western world.

The dynamic I see at work is we do the easy thing - we ban ownership of firearms by the law-abiding, most of whom obey the law, though we create by fiat another little group of criminals, the ones who won't surrender their weapons (the ones not on any registry, anyway) and really have zero impact on the firearms availability to the criminal class. And, because we've not made this huge, symbolic gesture that oppresses only the law-abiding, we pat ourselves on the back and don't try to figure out, much less address, the underlying causes that impels the criminal class to violence.

Of course, one reason we do that is because we don't want to face a possibly ugly truth - that absent incarceration, there just isn't much you *can* do -
which, of course, flies in the face of Enlightenment Thought.

The great increases in gun violence in the last 100 years correlate very strongly to: Prohibition and The War on Drugs. During the height of conflict in the
Civil Rights Era, there were high-profile shootings, but deadly firearms violence did not spike horrifically, except in localized areas.

The great *decreases* in firearms related violence in the US correlate strongly to... the end of Prohibition, and the "three strikes you're out, and harsh mandatory sentences for drug and violent offenders - and for the guys with long sentences, their recidivism due to violence (they may still engage in criminal activity) after release is markedly down... currently thought largely due to the fact they are so much older.

Much of the firearms violence in the US is gang and drug-related, both things greatly exacerbated by the "war on drugs."

You want to make policy changes that will drive down the numbers further - that is where to mine your gold. Banning firearms is a pointless exercise, except as a symbol to law-abiding people... "We don't trust you, because you don't think like us."

If your lot think it's going to help, I make *this* prediction... the Mohawks and others will add gun-running to their repertoire, and thefts of guns in the Northeastern US will spike for a bit, as the criminal organizations stock up for stuff to move around across the border. I shouldn't really pick on the Mohawks per se, but I recall that members of that tribe have made an almost patriotic thing of getting around Canadian Customs with items of lucrative interest, and they have that nice long border with the US, IIRC.

Here, you'll probably like this source as being not tainted by my right-wingedness... 8^)

Alan lofts back:

You are a nice softie rightest and we all know it. Do you see that it is a handgun ban. I think we have as many guns in Canada per person as the US (I may be wrong) but they are rifles. Right now the spate of shootings in Toronto with handguns does point out the lack of purpose for the handgun - I would suspect possession of a handgun will simply be made criminal as it is with machine guns here and the rifles will not be touched.

Alan

My final volley was this:

Which is *exactly* what I put all those words together about.

It's a meaningless gesture that only affects the law abiding and allows the politicians to look like they've done something, when in fact, what they have done, usefully, is

nothing.at.all.

Damian, when he jumped on my back and started whacking me about the head and shoulders did send along *this* link, which I recommend to Alan (and the rest of you):

Oh, and btw, here's a counterintuitive post from a fairly vehement Canadian lefty that's very much worth the read: The Amazing Wonderdog.

On this subject, at least, a lefty I can read without getting cross-eyed - well done, Sir.

Share This Article:

Categories:

1 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/4925

Margaret Thatcher released from hospital from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator on December 8, 2005 7:55 PM

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was released Thursday from a hospital where she had Read More

49 Comments

By Damian on December 8, 2005 3:52 PM
Jumping on your back? Geez, a guy tries to lob a big fat grapefruit into your roundhouse and all he gets is grief. Well, grief and a link, so thanks. I think the bottom line in all of this is that criminals don't give a rat's hind end which weapons you ban and which you don't. The only people this proposal will affect are those who care about staying within the law - respectable Canadian gun-owners. It's a cheap political stunt.
 
By Barb on December 8, 2005 4:58 PM
As it only bans handguns, it might even sound appealing to the good people who hunt, but don't think a handgun is required for their own lifestyles. But the reality is that the criminal element, as John says, will continue to hold onto whatever they want to - they are criminals and have no concerns about breaking laws. So the net effect will be to reduce the number of handguns in the hands of law abiding citizens, thus Increasing the Ratio of Criminals-With-Handguns to Citizens-With-Handguns. If that is all you care to do, by all means, remove the handguns from the good sheeple, and be done with it. Just recognize that it will not reduce crime as a result.
 
By Masked Menaceİ on December 8, 2005 4:59 PM
One, while it is true that gun control doesn't reduce crime*, just look at D.C., New York, and Chicago, but self-defense is a human right. I should be able to defend myself by any means necessary. If I'm in the grocery store parking lot, I can't carry (conceal) a rifle or shotgun, but I can carry (conceal) a handgun. A woman out for a jog can't carry a rifle with her, but a handgun could very well protect her from a rapist. To deny me the ability to effectively defend myself, you have said that the criminal's life is worth more than mine. Who's the morally superior? The dead rape victim who's been strangled to death with her own underwear, or the one holding a smoking handgun over a dead thug? Or is it only OK if she had used a long gun instead? The tools are not the problem, otherwise we need to start banning duct tape and rope to combat kidnappings, banning gas and matches to prevent arson, etc. (If gun control does anything at all it only changes the weapon. So now you just have a regular murder as opposed to the evil gun murder. And besides, do you really think the gang banger is going to think, "I've got no problem killing someone, but doing it with an illegal gun is just...wrong.")
 
By Masked Menaceİ on December 8, 2005 5:13 PM
Whoops, the * goes with the parenthetical.
 
By Alan on December 8, 2005 5:20 PM
Jeesh. Is nothing private around anywhere anymore. Canada doesn't have any legal history that would equate having a handgun with a human right. You say less the free, I say less of the dead and we may both be right. I am still not convinced. I need to see some stats on incarcerations on pure handgun possession tied to crime rates. Natural law and what founders might have wished are not particularly compelling policy makers. Has a nation actually arresting for handguns as opposed to long guns with any success. If an increase in incarceration handgun offenders has never met with a reduction in handgun crime, I would be convinced there was no point. If no one has actually incarcerated on the crime, then there is not much point to the crime rates. And how is it that "three-strikes" works for drugs supposedly and not guns?
 
By Masked Menaceİ on December 8, 2005 5:47 PM
It doesn't really matter to me if there is a legal history or not. The Soviet Union, China, NorK, don't have legal histories for several things we might call human rights, like not being killed by your gov't for not clapping long enough. Canada, then, not having a history of self-defense as a human right doesn't mean it isn't one. It means it just isn't a protected right. You said that if there were studies that link handgun incarceration to not reduce handgun crime, then you would agree it's pointless. But again I ask: Is a knife or hammer murder any less worse than a gun murder? If all you've done is change the weapon, what difference did it make? Is it OK for a woman to defend herself from a rapist with a long gun, but not a handgun?
 
By Masked Menaceİ on December 8, 2005 6:00 PM
And if you are looking for places with handgun bans, just look at D.C., which IIRC is the murder capital of the country, if not the industrial world. Look at New York, look at Chicago, watch what happens in, I believe, San Fran which just banned handguns.
 
By Alan on December 8, 2005 6:17 PM
Hey - even your blog system is against me it would not accept my link laden post which read as follows: [it just has a lefty sensor, Alan...] "Now I am really confused. How can anyone make a pattern about this that is ties a policy related to guns to criminalization? "The UK rate for 2004 11,160 gun crimes for 60,441,457 people or 1 for every 5416 people. The UK has had an increase in gun crimes: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1878913,00.html "In the US in 2004 there were 339,280 gun crimes for 295,734,134 people or 1 for every 872 people. US stats are not dropping so much as getting back to an normal poin after a weird 1988 to 1998 bump: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm "The Canadian stats do not separate out "gun crime" well. In total, about 300,000 violent crimes were reported to police in 2004, the majority of which were common assault. The violent crime rate fell 2%, continuing a general decline since 1992. The violent crime rate was 10% lower than a decade earlier, but 35% higher than 20 years ago. But crime generally is down as are violent crimes except for homicide murder: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050721/d050721a.htm" Alan
 
By Raymond B on December 8, 2005 6:40 PM
I go to Canada alot because I live close to a border crossing for Windsor. I must say, the stricter gun laws in Canada do make you feel safer when you walk around their at night, one need only look across the river to Detroit to see the effect the laws have. When I leave the casino's in Windsor I don't think anything about it, in Detroit I see most people walk right to their cars and leave, is this a reaction to the environment they feel they are in? Who knows? Are the proposed laws to restrictive? Maybe, but in some ways Canada's gun laws are effective. Raymond B www.voteswagon.com
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 8, 2005 6:58 PM
I see. So the purpose of law is to make you feel safe. It doesn't matter whether you are or not, as long as you feel safe, because you know some law exists. Okay, I'm being mean. Raymond - there are safe places in NY and DC, there are unsafe places. You can't make the assumption that just because you went through the tunnel to Windsor, it's the gun laws in Canada that made you safer - though you may *feel* that way. Put another way - I feel safe in Leavenworth. I don't feel safe in parts of downtown Kansas City. It has nothing to do with the gun laws, it has to do with the whole gestalt - of which, the gun laws are a part, but you can't over-generalize. Flip your comment. People in the south felt safe when blacks were disarmed and held down by Jim Crow. Was that ok? Not perfect, but illustrative, and I'm tired tonight.
 
By Masked Menace on December 8, 2005 7:28 PM
Again, I know I keep repeating this, but if gun control worked then places like D.C., Chicago, and New York would be safe cities. But they are consistently in the top for murder rate. While Detroit, which I believe allows concealed carry is bad, it is getting better, while those other cities continue to decline.
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 8, 2005 7:38 PM
MMİ - I think we got that point. C'mon, pile on with something else!
 
By ry on December 8, 2005 8:40 PM
Here's something else to look at: what of the move in merry ol' England to ban edged weapons with a fixed blade longer than x(I don't remember how long, but it was long enough to cause problems for some of the more macho cleavers, better hide SWWBO's favorite cutlery John). Which was done in response to home invasions with people using katana in Australia and England. So, you took the gun out of the criminals hands. He hacks you with a sword instead. Are you really safer? No, but you're still dead. Here's a thought, instead of banning handguns, start a program where people are tested for suitability(maturity, judgement, temperment, physical ability, decision making ability under stress, vision). If the person tested isn't up to having a handgun you train them in the use of a taser for home defense instead. Fewer guns to be stolen, no fears of Wild, Wild, West, and no gun grabbery. Win-win. People still get to protect their homes, gun enthusiasts get to collect and plink cans, and those with a phobia get their empty gesture. Never happen. Because we're dealing with an irrational fear of a piece of iron with no will of its own. A good place to look for a complete failure of gun laws is Japan. Nobody can carry legally. So, only the crims carry. Marginally fewer body bags, but a net increase in overall crime because now only the crims carry---and how long do nightmares about physical violation last? A lifetime, or so I'm told. Then, as others have said, Russia. Russian mafia have been known to shoot up stores just for fun. A nice resource, the web even, is Eugene Volohk(volohkconspiracy.com). He's a law prof at UCLA who does a lot of COn law---and so he's done a lot of 2nd amendment vs. gun grabber stuff. If'n ya wants stats 'ya go to the experts, and Volohk's an expert.
 
By Alan on December 8, 2005 9:06 PM
Just to be clear, John, there is no doubt statistically, anecdotally or any other way that Canada is safer in terms of crime than the US. You are not suggesting otherwise are you? Not "feel safe" is "safe". I just cannot see that argument. And I know two people (clients) who were murdered (axe and antifreeze if you must know) so I am not a dreamy cheese-eating schoolboy on this. But because you are tired, prove otherwise or, OK, even give me a decent sign of why and...ummm...I owe you five bucks Canadian...and that is still paper money up here so don't be givin me the loonie / loonie gears. Unless I send you Canadian Tire money. If you could make that case.
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 8, 2005 9:27 PM
Alan, you're mixing apples and oranges, and calling it a peach. Has not Canada been pretty much *always* safer than the US? The better question then, is to look at the impacts on your 'safeness' as a result of your laws. Making direct comparisons society to society isn't really a useful exercise, just like using raw numbers, vice controlled numbers (a pet peeve, not something you've done in this conversation) is not useful, especially when comparing a nation of 270 million to a nation of 70 million (not using Canada there, thinking more of the UK). Show me the numbers of how *much* safer Canada has become as you have made these changes. Don't compare your rates to ours. Then we'll get into the Teller argument. If you say that anything that reduces any deaths from firearms is a good thing, because if we save 10 people that's *good* - how slow are you willing to drive? Or is there a point at which you are willing to say that, well, okay, in order not to have to drive 15mph all the time, I'm willing to accept a background noise of X deaths. Let's frame the argument usefully.
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 8, 2005 9:33 PM
Oh - and I'm *still* tired, so I know I'm not on my best game, and may not get there until this weekend. I *am* doing war work, y'know. And SWWBO is now stranded in Chicago.
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on December 8, 2005 10:31 PM
The Gun Ban as proposed is a nullity. The old Handgun legislation restricted ownership to members of recognised gun clubs and individuals who had a verified job-related requirement. The new law as proposed would have the same provisions. What might be new would be the increased penalties for commiting a crime with a handgun, except that has been on the books for years. As for the question of curbing the Toronto crime wave, I don't know: the available information is very sparse because the media avoids seeking out that information, and the police are restrained from collecting the relevent data. It would be un-PC. Regarding Alan's question on gun crime in the UK: I admit to unsavory reading habits in that I read the "Telegraph". The "Telegraph" has been reporting those details for years, starting with the infamous Dunblane incident. Or take a spin through the archives of "samizdata.net/blog/" The summary: no legal handguns, much handgun crime. Cheers JMH
 
By MCart on December 8, 2005 11:31 PM
Afraid? Fear? What's that for? I carry a .45. (Or a 9mm as the attire of the day may require) What the heck do I need to be afraid of? Well, I'm afraid a bit at work, because my employer forbids concealed carry, but it's a free market and I choose to continue to work there. And I bet I can chuck a 19" monitor pretty far... If you fear for your safety, if you think denying criminals a weapon is a way to protect yourself, fine, pass laws with tougher sentences for FIRST time offenders that commit crimes with guns. Even better, serious jail time for those who knowingly transfer a firearm to a criminal. Don't rob me of my safety, and compromise my ability to protect myself. I've done the math. There are less than 1 police officer for every 10,000 citizens in my country. Make no mistake, if the criminal is in a hurry the only role the police will play is investigation, and hopefully keeping the criminal from offing the NEXT poor schlub on his list. Someday if something terrible happens, the person I save might be YOU. Remember that when you contemplate disarming your fellow law abiding citizens.
 
By MCart on December 8, 2005 11:39 PM
Ah, and as JMH already pointed out, Canada already has severely draconian gun laws on the books. You have to get written permission to transport your weapons to and from your house and a range, and some special thing for hunting already. Not new, but always offensive to those of us that take the safety of the people we love seriously.
 
By MCart on December 8, 2005 11:54 PM
Ah yes, and Alan... I'm curious what your definition of 'safe' is? Dictionary specific, or some special definition of your own? In the United States, we have almost 3x the number of murders (Thats from all causes, guns make up less than 30% of that, and you're actually more likely to be stomped to death), and about twice the aggravated assault that your nation enjoys, but did you know that in Canada you are more likely than your southern neighbors to experience a home break-in (30%), vehicle theft (18%), or arson (~45%)? Where I live the response time for a police officer is between 30 minutes to 45 minutes... I sincerely hope that your own local response time is better, should you ever experience one of the more likely crimes to be comitted in your 'safe' country. Cheers!
 
By Alan on December 9, 2005 4:55 AM
That is odd. I don't carry a gun because I don't need to. That is what makes me know I am safe. If you have to carry a gun, how can it be that you are not fixated on safety, compelled by avoiding the crime yet to be, presuming that life is that nasty. A gun will not stop a car striking me, being caught in an arsonist's fire as I sleep, most random acts of violence you have no time to respond to, theft of my stuff in the night or (what is more likely now) theft by computer. But John is right. It is a mug's game to compare in many ways but consider that, too, when you say that the US is the greatest country in the world bar none in all respects. We have the culture that was chosen for us and each has its strengths and weaknesses. Canada is hardly a weakling or a land astray by any assessment across the globe or across time. We are safe, prudent and not fearful. Do our laws provide for that? Our constitution promises "peace order and good government" (as opposed to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and for the most part we have that. Has the 1934 law drastically restricting handgun ownership and use contributed? How has it hurt?
 
By Mr Free Market on December 9, 2005 5:54 AM
Speaking from the UK (& some one how had to hand in his Hi Power when our pistol ban came in) ... these people will NEVER learn - just look at the UKs gun crime stats.
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 9, 2005 6:40 AM
I see that MCart is back from his commenting hiatus. Found his subject, we did.
 
By kat-missouri on December 9, 2005 8:25 AM
Well, Alan, I would say that the answer is "no", the gun laws have not contributed to your safety by dent of statistics, if nothing else. Stat Canada last five years But, you might argue that the crime rate isn't up by much. Let's look at homicide by method Last 40 years violent crime Now, if we look at this last graph, you might say "look, since 1992, violent crime did decrease and it did even more after introducing gun control laws", and I'd say, yes, but now it has risen and then stayed right around the same amount with only the method fluctuating. You know why that is? I have to find the quote, but your country did what my country did which was revamp your reporting mechanisms for crime because they were over reported. I believe it is commiserate with your 1992 peak and then fall post 1992. The US actually had the same thing occur. See my post here on crime statistics. Of specific interest should be these few items, one of which is where I discuss the miraculous drop in crimes in 1993 for the US: Crimes related to firearms began dramatically increasing in 1988. By 1993 they were up to 1.2 million per year. Immediately after 1993, these crimes began a miraculous drop in numbers to until it reached just over 300k per year, similar to the statistics recorded in 1973. The Brady Law was implemented in 1994. This is the data that gun control lobbyists use to promote the idea that waiting periods work and additional gun control or longer waiting periods could reduce the number of crimes even further. As I noted in that post, there is a disclaimer under all of the graphs and tables for this data: Source: National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Ongoing since 1972 with a redesign in 1993, this survey of households interviews about 75,000 persons age 12 and older in 42,000 households twice each year about their victimizations from crime. [snip] What happened in 1988 to the justice department that might have precipitated this unusual data pattern? In 1988, the Regulatory Flexibility Act was passed that required all agencies to present more data and information on programs they were managing (this is also in conjunction with "unfunded mandates reform act"). The DOJ had a rather large overhaul in order to meet this requirement and produce the data required. So, get it? In 1988 the DOJ was tasked with providing more information and they did, unfortunately implementing faulty data collection methods. The numbers were then used to push gun control (fake numbers reported by reporters freaked out the population; not that violent crime didn't exist or wasn't rising, it just wasn't the bogeyman it was made out to be). Then, right before the brady law was passed, the DOJ realized that their methods of collection and correlation sucked so they implemented new programs beginning in 1993 and, miraculously, the rate of violent crimes (including with fire arms) began to fall. This is not a conspiracy theory but fact reported by the DOJ but conveniently left out of the narrative of truth (remember our conversation about perceived truth) by the media, gun control lobbyists and politicians who want to use this issue for election because it did not fit with the story they were telling. At the same time, the fact that the project was completed in 1998 when miraculously again such crime rates stay almost steady for the last seven years, would indicate that this is no conspiracy theory but a matter of statistics and rules that apply. There is much more on my page, but I would hazard a guess, dear Alan, that this story is true for you too. Know why? the reason that more statistics were required and the reprogramming came along was to be able to share data across the country and with other nations. I'm going to look on the net to see if there are any similar documentation for Canada, but you might know more if you lived there. Now, I'm going to say something crazy here: Guns don't kill be, people kill people and, when your population is booming (see Canada with over 1.2 million population increase from 1996 to 2001 by immigration alone 1.4 million in births with similar statistics for the last 15 years), you are going to get a higher crime rate. And yes, that would include increasing per capita largely because the increased population tends to congregate in one area and density of population directly correlates to increased per capita crimes: more people, more friction, more opportunities for crime, more people willing to do it. Probably why Toronto, as the highest populated city and the fastest growing, has an increasing crime rate. Further, according to other statistics, organized crime is on the rise in Canada. As I once argued on WOC, you can legalize all sorts of things including drugs, but criminals make their money by circumventing the law and all that happens is they find something else to sell to make their revenue. In the case of Canada, some of it might be guns, but it is just or more likely that it includes things like smuggling cigarettes to avoid taxes, ecstacy (which I don't think even Canada is planning to legalize), people and other contraband. Also, racketeering goes up considerably. Organized crime appears, up goes the violent crime rates. So, I would say that handgun laws don't mean jack because criminals will always find a way whether that is to change "method" or circumvent your silly laws. Don't take my word for it. Prisoners who committed fire arm related crimes interviewed: a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2% a retail store or pawnshop for about 12% family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80% Story is probably the same in Canada and will continue to be. Other problem with comparing statistics is that we count suicide as a violent crime and when a fire arm is used it is listed as a fire arm crime. Well, guess what: According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, in 2001 about 39% of the deaths that resulted from firearms injuries were homicides, 57% were suicides, 3% were unintentional, and 1% were of undetermined intent. fire arm death statistics through 2001 11,671 were actual homicides by fire arm. US population is 297mil Actual homicide rate per 100k = 3.9 Canada's is approximately .53/100k Are they simply more pacifist or is there something else? Like say, newton's law of motion or kinetic energy theory? Such as, the greater the mass, the more force required to move and the greater the friction created? Or, increased number of moving objects in an enclosed system (kinetic energy, the smaller the space and the more moving objects the greater the heat generated)? Canada Population Density 3.2/sq km US 34/sq km Don't think because humans have the ability to reason and apply laws means that we can negate physics.
 
By Fred on December 9, 2005 8:54 AM
Alan, you have hit the nail on your own head. You have made a decision for yourself about your safety. I would say, fine, free country and all that. Where you go off is that you want to make that decision for everyone. Wrong.
 
By Masked Menaceİ on December 9, 2005 9:15 AM
To Kat's point, Georgia and Tennessee gun laws are substantially similar, but I feel a lot safer in my home town than I do in Memphis. Why? Because Memphis has about 1 million people in the metro area while the same land area around my home town has about 20,000 people. In Memphis, a half acre is a huge lot only to be owned by the wealthy. Back home, my elementary school teacher MIL and her former policeman husband (disabled in the line of duty) live on 17 acres. It's not the difference in laws that make you safer there (if anything, Ga is a little more lax). It's the culture and the sparse population.
 
By kat-missouri on December 9, 2005 9:22 AM
Let me second fred's comment. While I was nice enough to post all those statistics, I think that crime rates and right to bare arms are two different issues which I make clear over there. You are familiar with the three main bodies of government that provide checks and balances against each other: The executive, legislative and Judicial branches; each with their own powers and abilities to "check and balance" the other. However, the founding fathers understood that, even in such a system, the government entities alone could not be trusted to provide checks and balances against each other for the common good of the people. That still gave too much power to the government. So they insured that a fourth "check and balance" was in place: the individual citizen. That's right, we are the last "check" in our redundant system of government. The right to free speech, the right to due process of the law, the right for our property to be sancrosant and not arbitrarily confiscated or used by the government and the "right" to select representatives to government (ie, voting), none of these rights alone can protect us against abuse or despotic government. ...the final check and balance in the entire system is the ability of the individual citizen to change the government, by force and through taking up arms, if necessary, and to protect our persons and property from abuse by the government or other entity. And a conversation with an American ex pat in Europe who insisted that gun control laws made them safer: No offense Peter, but Europe can have it's tradition of being a self induced disarmed continent. You may also retain Europes lead as the place most likely to be over run or self inflict megalomaniacial leaders on its "civilized society". Please note: Over 200 years and not one dictator. 200 years of rescuing the rest of the world from dictators.
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 9, 2005 9:32 AM
MMİ hits it on the head for me, too. According to many statistical analyses, Leavenworth ranks 43rd out of 44 in terms of liveability in the KC Metro region. We have a poverty problem here, a serious one, I know, I work with the charities that deal with it. Over a third of our high school students qualify for free lunches, etc. And it's driven by the fact we have a lot of people living here who are waiting for someone to get out of one of the seven local houses of incarceration. Yet it's Kansas City that has the burgeoning (gang related) murder problem. Not here. KC has the gun laws. Not here. I don't go around armed, I don't feel the need. I plan my travels to avoid the places where the problems are, and rely on statistics (i.e., the chance of being victimized is really very low) for the rest. Others, obviously, feel differently. It's my choice. But at least I have the choice.
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 9, 2005 9:42 AM
Heh. Kat - I work with sumguyz who want to talk to you about Lincoln... Snerk!
 
By kat-missouri on December 9, 2005 10:57 AM
John, do they still call it "the war of northern agression"?
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on December 9, 2005 11:28 AM
We had nothing to do with it! ... And it's still the War of the American Rebellion! Cheers
 
By kat-missouri on December 9, 2005 11:43 AM
I think I needed to use proper inflection: The Wawrah of Nawthen A-gresh-shen or, the first time liberating armies ever heard... Yankee go home
 
By MCart on December 9, 2005 11:53 AM
Alan, no one, not even I, NEEDS a gun on their person until they are viciously attacked. Trouble is, you can't know when that might happen. When it happens, you need to already be prepared and equipped. If you are not, you will be a VICTIM in the most classic sense of the term. Getting back to vehicle theft, break-in and arson, those all happen a lot less in the US than in Canada. I've already won 2 of those three lotteries. In my 'safer' country. Canada does not have a murder rate of '0' or an aggravated assault rate of '0'. You are taking a chance that you will never be a victim. It can and does happen, regardless of how 'safe' your country is, or your neighborhood, or whether you visit 'bad places'. For me, there are no 'bad' places. I go where I like, and no one bothers me. Perhaps I don't smell like prey. And life is nasty. The world is full of mean, nasty people. Good people outnumber them, but they exist nonetheless. Am I fixated on safety? Probably. I'm prepared to care for my family for weeks after a massive earthquake. Geologically speaking, it's a long shot that one will occur within my lifetime, but I prepare anyway. No one seems to think that's crazy, so why is self-defense different? I'm prepared for an extended services outage, such as the one my southern countrymen experienced at the hands of mother nature this year. I'm about as prepared as you can reasonably be for ANY eventuality. Firearms and the ability to defend yourself will always be a part of that preparation, if you really want to survive the worst.
 
By cw4(ret)billt on December 9, 2005 12:44 PM
kat - The PC terminology is "The Unpleasantness Between the States." Sorta makes it sound like mayonnaise gone sour...
 
By kat-missouri on December 9, 2005 12:47 PM
Bill, I think that depends on which state you live in and whether you are still living in the plantation your great great grandparents owned at the time. Oh, and if ou are drinking a mint julep.
 
By cw4(ret)billt on December 9, 2005 12:58 PM
Makes as much sense as calling it "The Civil War." War'nt *nuthin'* po-lite about it... *sipping JD--straight, no ice, no frou-frou leaves*
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 9, 2005 2:07 PM
Kat - yes, and no. Some are just more libertarian-minded, and believe that the Republic fell off that tracks after Jefferson left office...
 
By kat-missouri on December 9, 2005 4:36 PM
*AFTER* Jefferson left office? We're talking about the same guy that used the sedition act to beat his opponents with (an act of tyranny if I ever heard one). Heh..I'd say the minute they signed the paper, the Republic became fair game. JM...we call it "the war before we tried to annex Canada". ;)
 
By Alan on December 9, 2005 4:44 PM
That'd be the Third War Of Failed Canadian Annexation after 1775 to 1783 and 1812 to 1814. Thank God for you that you guys got us to sign the Treaty of Ogdensburg. It's working out ok so far.
 
By kat-missouri on December 9, 2005 9:39 PM
Better check the expiration date on that Treaty. ;) Then again, I'm thinking we wouldn't necessarily want to arbitrarily increase the number of..um..liberals against guns intentionally. So, I suppose the best protection you really have is your citizens after all.
 
By cw4(ret)billt on December 10, 2005 1:07 AM
Alan - If you're really curious about some of the differences between our respective citizenry--rather, certain segments of said citizenry--ask any of the older RCMP folks about which crime statistics went through the roof in Toronto and Montreal between 1966 and 1972. Aka the Draft Dodger era.
 
By Alan on December 10, 2005 7:25 AM
Hey - we came up with an entirely new criminal sentence for that era, the "absolute discharge". I have been taught high school math by a DD with a Phd, worked in the courts with a DD who was Crown Attorney (your public prosecutor) and another DD was my insurer. They have aged gracefully.
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 10, 2005 8:03 AM
And you are welcome to them, Alan. I have no doubt they can (and in this case are) useful members of society. Many criminals who get out of prison also reintegrate successfully into society. What's your point? They could have down here - but since they found the social compact here to onerous, they voted with their feet. Glad they aren't here, don't care if they found someplace more convivial. Isn't nice there is sufficient diversity yet around the globe they could do that. As for Kat's thoughts on the citizenry, I think we'd selectively annex. Let Vancouver become a sovereign city-state, Quebec can be New France, with the agglomeration of the more liberal parts of Ontario and the Maritimes. Nunavut can go where'er it wishes and, since everybody knows the only reason the United States does anything is because of oil, we'll take that great huge hunk of oil-pumping righties in the middle-to-west, and whatever of the Maritimes as might wish to join.
 
By kat-missouri on December 10, 2005 10:37 AM
All in favor of annexing *parts* of Canada, say "Aye"
 
By Raymond B on December 10, 2005 6:35 PM
You make a good point John, its not just the laws that make you safe its the environment. Hopefully good laws help create a safe environment. I am all for everyone having the right to have a gun, I have no problem with that, I just want stronger laws on the books for those who committ crimes utilizing these guns. Raymond B www.voteswagon.com
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 10, 2005 6:45 PM
Raymond - *and* the enforcement of same.
 
By Alan on December 10, 2005 7:13 PM
I basically agree with that in that it is the enforcement which is key. Give an extra 10 years for crime "X" with a weapon over crime "X" and the general deterrence will work.
 
By ry on December 10, 2005 7:14 PM
Nay! If we make so the parts of Canada into the US that you're talking about where'd we get defensemen for hockey? Where'd we get the middle of the road comics? Where could we send our idiot malcontents(airfare to France costs to much)? Nay! If'n Canada is broke, let them fix it. We don't need to bring good beers production into the US. We'll just trade for it---how many beaver pelts for a six pack is it? Nay! For then how could we Blame Canada!
 
By John of Argghhh! on December 11, 2005 9:16 AM
Alan - we agree yet we don't. The deterrence effect of harsh sentencing hasn't really been shown... except that it makes persons prone to be law abiding more cautious. The most practical effect of harsh sentencing (on violence-prone offenders) is that it keeps them off the streets longer, and there has been a correlation of age to recidivism, i.e., the older the released felon is, the less likely they are to reoffend, at least in violent crimes. The flip side to getting too harsh is that felons will easily plead out to lesser offenses, which prosecutors will jump on in order to increase throughput (and easy convictions) on their dockets, and *bad* people will actually spend less time in jail. And just to make clear my predjudices on the subject (aside from that Masters in Criminal Justice) I don't think throwing people in jail is always the best response. I much prefer tossing people who engage in crimes of violence into jail for longer terms, and work the restitution angle for property criminals, and the community service angle for crimes of a social nature, like public drunkeness, prostitution, etc. I think there is great potential for technology here, as most people who get into small troubles tend to do so in their spare time. Put them under house arrest with electronic monitoring, and let them work, etc. They can spend weekends doing community service projects, etc. And part of the penalty is cost-share on the technology and monitoring. Saves money on incarceration (which may still happen, just shorter) and keeps them in the tax pool, and helps keep families off public assistance, and perhaps will help families stay together, though that isn't going to go away, by any means.
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.