Chicago Mayor blames "guns".
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: 'Lectro bike price drop
Next: Soapbox-derby style trike
From: Vito on 12 Nov 2009 17:03 "Lookout" <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote | | It needs to be a FEDERAL move and not local. Can you understand that? | Like in Washington, DC? That's very FEDERAL.
From: RM v2.0 on 12 Nov 2009 18:34 >>> >>> And I think the borders should be closed. >>> >>> Oopps..there goes my "liberal" title again >> >>Not closed but locked down tighter. >> > A klaus nym shift. Welcome to my filter. Ahh, I have been on this Nym for years. Who the hell is klaus?
From: RM v2.0 on 12 Nov 2009 18:35 >>>>> >>>>>Nope won't work there either, "lookout". People will just have the >>>>>flood of "immigrants" from mexico import a flod of guns along with >>>>>themselves. >>>> >>>>And I think the borders should be closed. >>>> >>>>Oopps..there goes my "liberal" title again >>> >>>Not closed but locked down tighter. >> >> A klaus nym shift. Welcome to my filter. > > > More RUNNING AWAY with a "filter?" > Looks like it, and called me Klaus. Might notice I have been on Usenet a long time, under this nym.
From: Lookout on 12 Nov 2009 19:42 On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:03:30 -0500, "Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >"Lookout" <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote | >| It needs to be a FEDERAL move and not local. Can you understand that? >| >Like in Washington, DC? That's very FEDERAL. > Federal..as in nation wide. Idiot.
From: Stephan Rothstein on 12 Nov 2009 21:57
Lookout wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:05:54 -0600, Stephan Rothstein > <srothstein(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> Lookout wrote: >>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:09:31 -0500, "Vito" <vito(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "Lookout" <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote >>>> | The problem is a lack of gun and gun owner control. >>>> >>>> If that were true there would be less crime where there is stricter control. >>>> Statistics show just the opposite. >>>> But phobia trumps fact. >>>> >>> There are. Look at military installations. >>> It won't work at the state level as you can just go to the next state >>> and buy what you want. We need NATIONAL laws that are enforced. >> Yeah, look at the recent incident at Ft. Hood and tell me again how well >> that works. > > ONE incident. Shall we look at murders in the US? > >> And there have been a lot of other crimes on base also. Note >> their police forces are about as proportional in size as similarly sized >> cities. > > Cite? You were an MP, weren't you? I could be wrong since that is an assumption from you and your wife having met while you were at McClellan. How many people were in your unit? How big was the base? My experience was that the police staffing ratio was over the national average of 1 per 2500, much as it is in small towns. Luling, where I live now has 14 officers for a population of 6000. Walter Reed had 50 officers for a population of around 5000 permanent party, 1500 patients, and 2500 civilian daytime workers. Leavenworth had about 70 MP's for a permanent party of about 3000 and a TDY to the school of 1000 students. They averaged around 4 family members for each person, but over half lived off-base. This does not count the 1000 MP's assigned to the DB for the 1600 inmates. > >> On a more serious note though, your logic about not working at >> the state level would fail because it is even easier to just go off base >> and get any guns you want. >> >> The example of a military base having a lower crime rate actually proves >> that gun control is not related to crime nearly as much as other >> factors. Lots of gun guys on base and they own their own weapons also. >> That is in addition to the closely controlled military weapons. > > And their is almost no crime on bases. I was in for 9 years and that's > a fact. Almost no crime what so ever. That is funny. I was an MP for 8 years, only 2 of which were guarding all those military prisoners at the USDB. Must have been quite a bit of crime to cram 1600 prisoners into one facility. And that was just the felonies. The misdemeanors were kept in local stockades. The Navy enlisted felons were also kept at their own prison in Portsmouth. While I was on patrol at three different bases, we handled calls for crimes almost every day > >> So, what is the primary factor that would explain the lower crime rate >> (and I agree it is lower in general)? I would look at the fact that the >> base has a select population as the primary example. It is not the >> general public, but a group of people that have been mostly screened and >> many of whom have had discipline instilled through military training. >> The use of the UCMJ instead of the civil laws might also be a factor. >> The fact that the military can, and does, control the civilian >> dependents by taking action against the military sponsor also may be a >> significant factor. >> >> I would say that this might be an area that is deserving of further >> study, but the conclusion is probably going to indicate that the >> presence or lack of guns is not nearly as big a factor as the select >> population and the justice system overall. It makes the comparison >> useless for the debate or could work against the gun control side. We >> definitely need some reforms in our civilian criminal justice system, >> though I would not suggest implementing a military type system for the >> whole country. >> >> Steve Rothstein > > It's not a lack of guns..you're missing the point. There are a lot of > US military personnel who won their own weapons. The fact is that they > are locked up in a secure place AWAY FROM THE OWNER when not in use. > This stops crimes of passion such as a fight with a spouse. It's OWN > CONTOL as much as gun control IMHO. You missed the point. All those who had the guns locked up lived in barracks. There were not nearly as many crimes of passion there, since there were NO families to have domestic disturbance calls with. The people living in housing had their guns in the house also. If the crime rate is lower, it was not do to the availability or lack of availability of guns. The factor of the selected population is probably much more to be credited. Of course, you recognize this when you admit it is not gun control but owner control. Are your really saying you want the full military discipline and justice system applied to everyone in the US? > ALL hand guns should be licensed > ALL hand guns owner should be registered AFTER proper training and > screening > > Simple and no one is being deprived of a gun. And it does absolutely nothing to reduce crimes of passion that you seem to worry about. The guns are still with the owners in their houses. Steve Rothstein |