Fighting for MY Freedoms?

[sambino510]

I only stomp on those who have it coming to them. The clean debate zone is a great place for those who like to play nice.

The facts are the facts. Just because they don't make everyone feel warm and fuzzy inside is no reason not to discuss them---as long as there is some measure of respect.

The better one understands the world around him, the better one can cope. You can't judge a person on their outside appearance. I work with all types of people about every day and don't have a problem with it. That is unless they smell really bad---like this one kid (White) this morning who about knocked me over once I opened the door. But you can look at groups of people in certain areas, see what they have been doing, and use common sense. All of Oaklnad isn't as bad as the areas where all the murders have been going on. I would hope you know walking around them isn't wise.

Looking at all the factors that influence crime over the years I have been able to put 2 and 2 together and see what all high crime areas have in common---as I already stated. Even if all that I said was bull, ask yourself why did crime go up about 350% in the mid-1960's?

View attachment 26757
(click to enlarge)

Did the gun ownership rates go up 350%?
Did the guns suddenly become 350% more effective in just a few years?
Did Blacks and Hispanics themselves suddenly increase 350% in numbers?
Did poverty increase that much or did the economy shrink that much then?

What happened then?

The criminal justice system and laws became liberalized. Criminals were able to run amok in areas with weak Leftist leadership----as they do to this day in places like Oakland, Detroit, Atlanta and so on.

Well what do Republican mayors or leaders do that is different from Democrat ones? Specifically? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just be curious to know. Once again, I'm personally Independent so I have no strong feelings either way. Also, what are your personal solutions to these problems of rampant crime in these cities?

I'm also aware of the very, very important time period of the 1960s but not so very sure what gun violence has to do with things like the Civil Rights Act, nor do I know why there would be a huge boom in ethnic groups, though that's certainly possible I suppose. Was there another moment or piece of legislation that was more decisive during that time period?

In terms of your statistics, why would gun ownership go up and why would guns become more effective? Once again, just looking for a little insight.

To have high crime here in the US there are the the various factors that come together to create "the perfect storm."

First, as bad as it sounds, certain ethnics groups are statistically more violent. It isn't about profiling or racism, it just the way it is. I doubt if you can stomach much of it, but here is a basic overview of Dept of Justice stats:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JbAO5_NMw]F.B.I and U.S. Justice department Black vs White Crime statistics. - YouTube[/ame]

Second, were the laws and legislation of the time. Yes the Civil Rights laws were a big factor, but more so were rulings from Leftist judges, starting mainly with the Warren Court in the late 1950's with their disasterous Miranda laws. Police forces had their hands tied more and more. The liberal courts use of unlimited appeals, making prisons more comfortable and anit-death penalty laws all gave great aid and comfort to the criminal community.

Back before these laws took effect, an abusive loudmouth gangster in the hood would have been beaten or sometimes killed once he got back to the police station if he fought the cops. Police brutality did help create order in many areas that later exploded with violence after the mid-1960's.

Third, the culture of welfare dependancy, gangs and believing that "It's not my fault" all combine in these high crime areas to allow criminals to escape justice. Conviction rates are horribly low in all the high crime areas. DA's in these cities do their best to suppress this information. Criminals will do more crime and more violence when there is a good chance they will not have to do time for it.

The ignorant and dishonest people in this thread (who shall remain nameless) will give their great thesis that more guns = more crime. Notice how they cherry pick murder rates for Western countries like the UK with few guns, then surmise that gun control laws keep the planet safe for everyone. They fail to bring up gun statistics from the many other countries in Europe that have more guns and less crime---like Switzerland. About one home in four there have a fully automatic assault rifle in them. Crime is much lower there than the UK. Go figure. They will also mix in gun suicides in with homicides and call them "gun deaths" to support their work. In the US, the areas with the most guns per household like Wyoming and the Dakotas also have about the lowest violent crime and murder rates.

Whatever statistics you want to throw out there, there are always the stories behind the numbers. Non-white ethnic groups, whether it's African Americans, Latinos, whoever, are the disenfranchised, forgotten races of America, at least for many, many years. Certainly their experiences today can hardly be compared to those of the early part of the 20th century, but even now, their former struggles still resonate. They may have gangs, may be the most violent races statistically, but that is for a whole plethora of reasons, not because their brains work any different than ours or because their races just love to kill and commit crimes. There are plenty of white people in jails serving sentences too, whether it's for murder or drug offenses or who knows what.

I see Miranda laws as an important checks and balances on the criminal justice system. The last thing we need is a bunch of vigilante cops running around dispensing street justice thinking they're the heroes of America. Times have changed, and though it might be harder to detain and prosecute criminals, it SHOULD be difficult to effect someone's life in such a profound way. I refuse to go back to the times before the great progress made in the 1960s just because, statistically, things seemed to have been better in the realm of gun violence.

Also, police brutality is not the answer. I doubt that was the point you were trying to make, but if cops must beat a black man to death in the basement of a police HQ to create order, I'll take anarchy until we can find a real solution.

Welfare dependency I wouldn't say is necessarily a "culture". There will always be people who take advantage of the system, but those people are the exception to the rule that there ARE poor people in this country and there ARE people who need things like food stamps and unemployment benefits until they can get back on their feet. If we do not help them, I doubt that will do much to improve crime rates. Gangs in my mind are a result of urban youth not having very good influences. Their gang members or groups become a family to replace a family they might not have, and their actions of stealing and killing a rite of passage. I certainly don't condone any of this, but the long-term cure for this epidemic is NOT imprisonment and it is NOT simply crime and punishment. You have to fight it at the source, and create better opportunities through better schools and better support programs. Many urban cities are lacking in these areas.

In terms of your claim that others on this site are tampering with the statistics in order to prove a point, I don't see that at all. They're simply citing what they feel supports their argument, not necessarily omitting other facts. I see no conspiracy or dishonesty behind statistics they cite, they simply feel they're right in the same way that you feel you're right. Indeed, there are truths to both sides of the spectrum, that some countries have done better with no gun laws and others have done better with lots of gun laws. Switzerland is a good example of the former; Australia the latter. However, each country is unique, and there is no cure-all that should apply to every major country in the world. Thus, we have to try different things in America and see what works, because obviously what we're doing right now is not working. If we are not to advocate for gun CONTROL, then we have to advocate for SOMETHING to be done. I once again ask you for your personal view of what should be done if guns are not controlled; should we adapt a strategy like Switzerland? One like Australia? Or something else?

 

[Survivalist]

Whatever statistics you want to throw out there, there are always the stories behind the numbers. Non-white ethnic groups, whether it's African Americans, Latinos, whoever, are the disenfranchised, forgotten races of America, at least for many, many years. Certainly their experiences today can hardly be compared to those of the early part of the 20th century, but even now, their former struggles still resonate. They may have gangs, may be the most violent races statistically, but that is for a whole plethora of reasons, not because their brains work any different than ours or because their races just love to kill and commit crimes. There are plenty of white people in jails serving sentences too, whether it's for murder or drug offenses or who knows what.

I see Miranda laws as an important checks and balances on the criminal justice system. The last thing we need is a bunch of vigilante cops running around dispensing street justice thinking they're the heroes of America. Times have changed, and though it might be harder to detain and prosecute criminals, it SHOULD be difficult to effect someone's life in such a profound way. I refuse to go back to the times before the great progress made in the 1960s just because, statistically, things seemed to have been better in the realm of gun violence.

Also, police brutality is not the answer. I doubt that was the point you were trying to make, but if cops must beat a black man to death in the basement of a police HQ to create order, I'll take anarchy until we can find a real solution.

Welfare dependency I wouldn't say is necessarily a "culture". There will always be people who take advantage of the system, but those people are the exception to the rule that there ARE poor people in this country and there ARE people who need things like food stamps and unemployment benefits until they can get back on their feet. If we do not help them, I doubt that will do much to improve crime rates. Gangs in my mind are a result of urban youth not having very good influences. Their gang members or groups become a family to replace a family they might not have, and their actions of stealing and killing a rite of passage. I certainly don't condone any of this, but the long-term cure for this epidemic is NOT imprisonment and it is NOT simply crime and punishment. You have to fight it at the source, and create better opportunities through better schools and better support programs. Many urban cities are lacking in these areas.

In terms of your claim that others on this site are tampering with the statistics in order to prove a point, I don't see that at all. They're simply citing what they feel supports their argument, not necessarily omitting other facts. I see no conspiracy or dishonesty behind statistics they cite, they simply feel they're right in the same way that you feel you're right. Indeed, there are truths to both sides of the spectrum, that some countries have done better with no gun laws and others have done better with lots of gun laws. Switzerland is a good example of the former; Australia the latter. However, each country is unique, and there is no cure-all that should apply to every major country in the world. Thus, we have to try different things in America and see what works, because obviously what we're doing right now is not working. If we are not to advocate for gun CONTROL, then we have to advocate for SOMETHING to be done. I once again ask you for your personal view of what should be done if guns are not controlled; should we adapt a strategy like Switzerland? One like Australia? Or something else?

As far as my ideas for fixing crime:

As a hypothetical mayor or city coucilman of let's say Chicago, I'd do away with all the useless gun control laws. I would have the police patrol as the military does in at least squads of about 12+ 24/7 in all the worst areas in a random fashion. Police would also carrry handheld video cameras.

I would also parade all arrested individuals, 16 and up, in front of the public in the form of a website with the details of their arrests and prior records. All trials would be open to the public except with the rape of minors.

I belive we should have all the gun control laws the Founding Fathers had back in 1789. Basically, none. I do not support judical review, or activism of any sort. All gun control laws should be thrown in the trash dumpster. I would treat violent criminals like the Founders would have back in the day. Hang the worst offenders right away, and all repeat violent felons after their 3rd + trip through the prison system. Appeals should never, ever go past 6 months before the trap door opens.

Crime will always be higher in large cities with large ethnic enclaves of the usual suspects, but I see no excuse for it to be higher than it was before 1960. That is the baseline.

The sorry laws that were put in around 50 years ago may seem so great and so righteous, but have done far more to increase crime than about anything else.

We don't need a system like the Swiss or Aussies, we need to go back to the criminal laws we had at least 55 years ago. We can expect certain groups to act differently, but they should all be treated the same under the law. No sacred cows.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Is there crime there? You bet. But the rate of death by gun is much, much less so than in the US. There are much less guns out in society in these places, and much less gun death. Hmmm. This is pretty simple so far.

Right. It is a simple attempt to confuse the issue through misdirection. You lump good things, bad things, and accidents together and present it like it is meaningful. It isn't. The results do not speak to murder rates or crime.

Statistically, more guns equals more mayhem. It means it is more likely that there will be accidents, that guns will be stolen by criminals, that arguements may escalate to deadly force. It means there will be shoot outs on the street, with greater possibities of bystanders being hit. It means that all, from police to shop keepers to criminals will be much more likely to pull a gun, whereas in other countries they would not.

Well, don't be bashful, feel free to present those statistics you claim exist. I say you're dreaming.

It is an illusion that one is safer packing a gun down the street, and that they will be able, James Bond style, to detect danger from all points of the compass, and outdraw the bad guys. If you have done military service, then you know how obscenely easy it is to shoot someone, if one's motivation is strong enough. More guns simply means a quicker resort to deadly force, and all loose.

And that may the only way some folks-small women and old folks come to mind- may have of defending themselves and/or those they love from large powerful criminals armed with an ax or club. I think that's a good thing and that to deny someone the only viable option for defense is in itself criminal as it aids and abets crime.

 

[Auteur]

To have high crime here in the US there are the the various factors that come together to create "the perfect storm."

First, as bad as it sounds, certain ethnics groups are statistically more violent. It isn't about profiling or racism, it just the way it is. I doubt if you can stomach much of it, but here is a basic overview of Dept of Justice stats:

F.B.I and U.S. Justice department Black vs White Crime statistics. - YouTube

So this is about blacks and hispanics, or about those that find themselves at the butt end of a society with vast inequality, prejudice, and a fixation on material gain? Because when white socities have found themselves in stressful sociological conditions, violence and death have certainly been no less prevailant. WW1 &2, the long conflict in N Ireland, the war in the former Yugoslavia- all rage against real or perceived wrongs, that led to mass bloodletting. Your ghetto gangbangers are amatuers by comparsion.

Second, were the laws and legislation of the time. Yes the Civil Rights laws were a big factor, but more so were rulings from Leftist judges, starting mainly with the Warren Court in the late 1950's with their disasterous Miranda laws. Police forces had their hands tied more and more. The liberal courts use of unlimited appeals, making prisons more comfortable and anit-death penalty laws all gave great aid and comfort to the criminal community.

You'd better watch out for 9thIDdoc. He said he was going to guard the constitution with his gun, so keep your head down. The Miranda law is a basic freedom, one that reafirms the constitution, and is indeed one of the cornerstones of the very "freedoms" that gun enthusiasts claim they love so much. If you are going to have freedom, it must be for everyone, otherwise your freedoms will be at the whim of any traffic cop that comes along, and misinterprets the depth of your suntan.

Back before these laws took effect, an abusive loudmouth gangster in the hood would have been beaten or sometimes killed once he got back to the police station if he fought the cops. Police brutality did help create order in many areas that later exploded with violence after the mid-1960's.

Deaths and beatings in police custody. Do you think this is going to heal the vast racial divide in the US, or increase respect for the somewhat shaky police agencies in the country?

Third, the culture of welfare dependancy, gangs and believing that "It's not my fault" all combine in these high crime areas to allow criminals to escape justice. Conviction rates are horribly low in all the high crime areas. DA's in these cities do their best to suppress this information. Criminals will do more crime and more violence when there is a good chance they will not have to do time for it.

In fact the US has some of the most draconian laws in the civilized world, including the death penalty, extensive use of life sentences, long prison terms for minor offences, and terrible consequences for anything to do with drugs. It also has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Yet crime is rampant. A wider view is needed, but will likely not be forthcoming.

The ignorant and dishonest people in this thread (who shall remain nameless) will give their great thesis that more guns = more crime. Notice how they cherry pick murder rates for Western countries like the UK with few guns, then surmise that gun control laws keep the planet safe for everyone. They fail to bring up gun statistics from the many other countries in Europe that have more guns and less crime---like Switzerland. About one home in four there have a fully automatic assault rifle in them. Crime is much lower there than the UK. Go figure.

Yes, there are many guns in the home in Switzerland, but not because emotionally disturbed kids have bought them at gun shows, and are now plotting to get even with their rotten teachers, who insist they attend school. They have them because they have joined the army. It is hard to think of a more comprehensive vetting process than joining the military, and taking all the associated tests and assessments. This is a horse of a different color. And even so, Switzerland is not without its problems. Gun deaths there are still quite a bit higher per capita than in comparible European countries, although still lower than in the US. And regardless, if social conditions in the US are such that gun violence is widespread, then measures are needed to address this, no matter the experience of other countries.

They will also mix in gun suicides in with homicides and call them "gun deaths" to support their work.

Of course they are the same thing Mr S. If your wife, or child, or friend killed themselves with a readily available gun, would it be any less painful than if they had been killed by homicide or by accident? Deaths due to the availability of guns: that is the issue here.

In the US, the areas with the most guns per household like Wyoming and the Dakotas also have about the lowest violent crime and murder rates.

You have cherry picked some relatively afflluent, socially cohesive communities to indicate lower crime rates. Some thing like Switzerland, hmmm?

 

[Mushroom]

You have cherry picked some relatively afflluent, socially cohesive communities to indicate lower crime rates. Some thing like Switzerland, hmmm?

Wow, love how this has turned into something completely different from what it started as. But that does tend to happen in here, sorry Sambino.

But what about other cities Auteur, like say Kennesaw, Georgia. A semi-rural town in Georgia, 11% live below the poverty line, provides free Internet in the city parks, and in 30 years has had the population explode by over 600%.

Oh, and has the lowest crime rates in the nation. Violent crime is 85% below national average, property crime 45-55% below national average.

Crime rate in Kennesaw, Georgia (GA): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics

Of course, Kennesaw passed a law back in 1982 requiring all households that are not prohibited by law to possess a firearm. And while people still try to say that the law (which is not enforced) had nothing to do with the reduction in crime, they still can't explain it any other way.

 

[Auteur]

Is there crime there? You bet. But the rate of death by gun is much, much less so than in the US. There are much less guns out in society in these places, and much less gun death. Hmmm. This is pretty simple so far.

Right. It is a simple attempt to confuse the issue through misdirection. You lump good things, bad things, and accidents together and present it like it is meaningful. It isn't. The results do not speak to murder rates or crime.

There is nothing confusing at all if you take a closer look at the stats. Gun deaths are higher in the US than in other modern, advanced democracies, usually by an extremely high margin. Those that have higher rates of gun deaths are usually countries that are a sociological mess, such as Brazil, Central America, or similar.

Statistically, more guns equals more mayhem. It means it is more likely that there will be accidents, that guns will be stolen by criminals, that arguements may escalate to deadly force. It means there will be shoot outs on the street, with greater possibities of bystanders being hit. It means that all, from police to shop keepers to criminals will be much more likely to pull a gun, whereas in other countries they would not.

Well, don't be bashful, feel free to present those statistics you claim exist. I say you're dreaming.

I though we left you guardin' the constitution Mr 9. If you now have time on your hands, you can look them up, and present your findings here.

It is an illusion that one is safer packing a gun down the street, and that they will be able, James Bond style, to detect danger from all points of the compass, and outdraw the bad guys. If you have done military service, then you know how obscenely easy it is to shoot someone, if one's motivation is strong enough. More guns simply means a quicker resort to deadly force, and all loose.

And that may the only way some folks-small women and old folks come to mind- may have of defending themselves and/or those they love from large powerful criminals armed with an ax or club. I think that's a good thing and that to deny someone the only viable option for defense is in itself criminal as it aids and abets crime.

Look, you are getting your information from old western movies. Those with truely bad intent are not going to challenge potential victims to a fair fight on Main Street, giving the opponent a chance to draw first. They are going to kill them, or otherwise do serious damage to get what they want, and choose a time when their victim is not looking, has their back turned, is distracted, is unaware in some critical way.

And furthermore, if all in society become armed, as you seem to advocate, then you can be sure that any potential assailant is also going to be armed, and will have the choice of shooting first. Arming everyone simply ups the anti by providing everyone with lethal force.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Of course they are the same thing Mr S. If your wife, or child, or friend killed themselves with a readily available gun, would it be any less painful than if they had been killed by homicide or by accident?

What you might find "painful" has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Nobody died and made you king with the right to overrule anyone else's personal decisions.

Deaths due to the availability of guns: that is the issue here.

No, that is what you would like to make an issue. You brought up gun control and there is no good reason to assume that in this country strict gun control laws have any effect other than to increase rates of violent crime and the numbers of innocent victims. Those in favor of such laws are simply pro-crime.

 

[Auteur]

You have cherry picked some relatively afflluent, socially cohesive communities to indicate lower crime rates. Some thing like Switzerland, hmmm?

Wow, love how this has turned into something completely different from what it started as. But that does tend to happen in here, sorry Sambino.

But what about other cities Auteur, like say Kennesaw, Georgia. A semi-rural town in Georgia, 11% live below the poverty line, provides free Internet in the city parks, and in 30 years has had the population explode by over 600%.

Oh, and has the lowest crime rates in the nation. Violent crime is 85% below national average, property crime 45-55% below national average.

Crime rate in Kennesaw, Georgia (GA): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics

Of course, Kennesaw passed a law back in 1982 requiring all households that are not prohibited by law to possess a firearm. And while people still try to say that the law (which is not enforced) had nothing to do with the reduction in crime, they still can't explain it any other way.

Poor and semi-rural? Its a commuter suburb of Atlanta, is it not? Anyway, the LA Times takes a more balanced look:


The ordinance amounted to a pro-2nd Amendment rebuttal to Morton Grove, Ill., which had just banned handguns within its city limits. Because the Kennesaw City Council did not impose penalties, or order enforcement, the law remains mostly symbolic

Today, Kennesaw maintains a low crime rate, but not remarkably so, compared with other Georgia towns of similar size. It reported 21 violent crimes in 2011, according to the FBI's uniform crime statistics database. That put it well below Douglasville, which recorded 179 violent crimes, but above Milton (14 violent crimes) and Peachtree City (eight violent crimes).

In Kennesaw, the city's regular spokesman on the gun issue doesn't make any big claims. "It's hard to say what impact the ordinance itself may have," Police Lt. Craig Graydon said. "It seems to help some, but we're not sure how much impact it has overall on crime."

More or fewer guns? The experts are divided - Los Angeles Times

 

[9thIDdoc]

Look, you are getting your information from old western movies. Those with truely bad intent are not going to challenge potential victims to a fair fight on Main Street, giving the opponent a chance to draw first. They are going to kill them, or otherwise do serious damage to get what they want, and choose a time when their victim is not looking, has their back turned, is distracted, is unaware in some critical way.

And furthermore, if all in society become armed, as you seem to advocate, then you can be sure that any potential assailant is also going to be armed, and will have the choice of shooting first. Arming everyone simply ups the anti by providing everyone with lethal force

None of this disproves anything I have said nor does it change the fact that many people who otherwise would have had no or poor chance successfully defend themselves with weapons every day . I am just unable to believe that anyone who has been in the military would not prefer to prefer to be armed than unarmed if involved in combat. Silly idea.

And, once again, no honest person uses the meaningless term "gun deaths".

 

[numan]

...what an absurd position it is to think that handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. are a guarantee against some paranoid fear of "government". If your strange sort of nightmare actually came true, and the evil liberals came for you in the night, your civilian guns would count for nothing. They are of almost no value against a modern, organized, equipped military force, such as the US and all other modern industrial nations have. You are living out an NRA fantasy, in which the recollections of old cowboy movies come to mind, and the idea of the rugged frontiersman looms large, which is just what is hoped for.

An instructive example is the situation in Nazi-occupied France. After D-Day, when the German army was disorganized and on the run, armed resistance and attack by the Partisan forces was a significant factor in driving the Germans out -- especially in Paris.

But before then, for four long years, the civilian opposition to the invaders was insignificant, and the French Resistance was merely a minor annoyance to the Nazis -- and the Nazi resources were primitive compared to those of the present US military machine.

And it certainly was not the case that the French Resistance lacked arms and organization -- the Allies provided as much of both as they thought practicable. It's just that the Allies were much more realistic than the loony-tune, ignorant "militias" in the perennially unsophisticated USA.
.

 

[Survivalist]

To have high crime here in the US there are the the various factors that come together to create "the perfect storm."

First, as bad as it sounds, certain ethnics groups are statistically more violent. It isn't about profiling or racism, it just the way it is. I doubt if you can stomach much of it, but here is a basic overview of Dept of Justice stats:

F.B.I and U.S. Justice department Black vs White Crime statistics. - YouTube

So this is about blacks and hispanics, or about those that find themselves at the butt end of a society with vast inequality, prejudice, and a fixation on material gain? Because when white socities have found themselves in stressful sociological conditions, violence and death have certainly been no less prevailant. WW1 &2, the long conflict in N Ireland, the war in the former Yugoslavia- all rage against real or perceived wrongs, that led to mass bloodletting. Your ghetto gangbangers are amatuers by comparsion.

Second, were the laws and legislation of the time. Yes the Civil Rights laws were a big factor, but more so were rulings from Leftist judges, starting mainly with the Warren Court in the late 1950's with their disasterous Miranda laws. Police forces had their hands tied more and more. The liberal courts use of unlimited appeals, making prisons more comfortable and anit-death penalty laws all gave great aid and comfort to the criminal community.

You'd better watch out for 9thIDdoc. He said he was going to guard the constitution with his gun, so keep your head down. The Miranda law is a basic freedom, one that reafirms the constitution, and is indeed one of the cornerstones of the very "freedoms" that gun enthusiasts claim they love so much. If you are going to have freedom, it must be for everyone, otherwise your freedoms will be at the whim of any traffic cop that comes along, and misinterprets the depth of your suntan.



Deaths and beatings in police custody. Do you think this is going to heal the vast racial divide in the US, or increase respect for the somewhat shaky police agencies in the country?



In fact the US has some of the most draconian laws in the civilized world, including the death penalty, extensive use of life sentences, long prison terms for minor offences, and terrible consequences for anything to do with drugs. It also has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Yet crime is rampant. A wider view is needed, but will likely not be forthcoming.



Yes, there are many guns in the home in Switzerland, but not because emotionally disturbed kids have bought them at gun shows, and are now plotting to get even with their rotten teachers, who insist they attend school. They have them because they have joined the army. It is hard to think of a more comprehensive vetting process than joining the military, and taking all the associated tests and assessments. This is a horse of a different color. And even so, Switzerland is not without its problems. Gun deaths there are still quite a bit higher per capita than in comparible European countries, although still lower than in the US. And regardless, if social conditions in the US are such that gun violence is widespread, then measures are needed to address this, no matter the experience of other countries.



Of course they are the same thing Mr S. If your wife, or child, or friend killed themselves with a readily available gun, would it be any less painful than if they had been killed by homicide or by accident? Deaths due to the availability of guns: that is the issue here.

In the US, the areas with the most guns per household like Wyoming and the Dakotas also have about the lowest violent crime and murder rates.

You have cherry picked some relatively afflluent, socially cohesive communities to indicate lower crime rates. Some thing like Switzerland, hmmm?

I'm too impatient to mulitquote everything, but I'll try to hit on some of your concerns and biases.

As for Miranda---it isn't needed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just another dodge for criminals to escape justice.

As for higher Black violence, that's just the way it is. Humans fall under the same laws of nature that all animals do. Besides the obivous physical differences, intelligence and behavior can be inherited traits that follow ethnic groups. There are all kinds of snakes, but the Black Mambas are the most aggressive and dangerous. Their brains are hardly different than the others. To think that the environment or things like "racism" are the primary causes of Black violence is like someone believing the earth was flat 400 years ago. Anyone now publically saying anything other than the PC line will be burned at the stake. If "racism is the primary cause of Black ills, then why is every country in Sub-Saharan Africa a basket case? Evil Westerners haven't controlled most of them for over 50 years.

Ask anyone here if they are worried more about other people killing themselves with guns, or other people killing them with any weapon...in other words...are they more worried about crime? And sucicide are not considered crimes. The "gun deaths" stats you gun-phobes dish out are designed to mislead.

What good are all the laws if the people living in the hood and other high crime areas don't obey them? Show me some conviction rate data for Detroit, Chicago or any other gangland.

As for the areas I cherry-picked, look at the colored graphs below. It would be more accurate to have the maps done city or county, but I'm limited to the studies done.

On the green map, the darker the area, the more guns per household (done by Harvard gun grabbers BTW). One the Red map the darker states are states with the most violent crimes. Notice how in almost every case the more guns = the less violent crime. Go figure.





As for violent crime, not "gun deaths" the Swiss are always far below the UK.

One last thing to chew on. Would you feel more threatened in a gun collector's house with a hundred guns well supervised, or in a crack house with ten crackheads and just one stolen handgun?

 

[High_Gravity]

Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.

July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.

As I thought deeper about this whole question, I decided to take the war in Afghanistan as an example. Originally, this war was started in order to take revenge against Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden. This particular, early part of the mission was maybe fighting for "me", or most of the "me"'s who wanted to fight back after a direct attack on our soil. Nonetheless, now we are in a deep, complicated process of nation-building, with little to no way out. So are the American soldiers firing at young Afghan Taliban soldiers, or accidentally blowing up a few children here and there actually fighting for MY personal freedom? MY liberty? I'm not so sure.

So then who are our soldiers fighting and dying for? The Afghan people? That seems to be the only logical alternative, as the official mission of the U.S. military is to improve the Afghan way of life by getting rid of the Taliban and establishing better infrastructure. Though how many of them truly want us there, or feel they are safer in the long-term with all sorts of mechanized death flying over their heads every day? We have made such great strides in the economic and social infrastructure of Afghanistan, but I fail to give credit to the bombs or bullets for that progress.

How about a third alternative? Perhaps the U.S. military is fighting for America's interests abroad. Sure, we might say that we are trying to protect the liberties of other nations and establish democratic governments, but maybe there are underlying motives. I would be the last to bring up the tired old "oil" theory, but there are many complex issues in the Middle East or North Africa that a regional U.S. military presence can effect.

As I thought about these different perspectives, each seemed to tumble back upon one another. Some of these theories are certainly viable, but none seemed to fit the bigger picture for me. I think in many cases, through a number of books I've read of first-hand accounts of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, these soldiers simply fight for brotherhood, for the "man in the foxhole next to them", to use a famous quote. Their struggles as a unit are seen as a rite of passage, a way of proving oneself as a man and a human being in general. For the more troubled youths, it is a way of learning obedience, and loyalty, and of obtaining a deep friendship with your fellow soldiers. As one come so close to death on the battlefield every day, one matures at a pace one's fellow 20-some-year-old's couldn't imagine. Thus, if anything, these motives seem surprisingly selfish, using a very serious conflict for relatively non-serious personal psychological gain.

Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.

Enjoying your summer vacation little one?

 

[sambino510]

Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.

July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.

As I thought deeper about this whole question, I decided to take the war in Afghanistan as an example. Originally, this war was started in order to take revenge against Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden. This particular, early part of the mission was maybe fighting for "me", or most of the "me"'s who wanted to fight back after a direct attack on our soil. Nonetheless, now we are in a deep, complicated process of nation-building, with little to no way out. So are the American soldiers firing at young Afghan Taliban soldiers, or accidentally blowing up a few children here and there actually fighting for MY personal freedom? MY liberty? I'm not so sure.

So then who are our soldiers fighting and dying for? The Afghan people? That seems to be the only logical alternative, as the official mission of the U.S. military is to improve the Afghan way of life by getting rid of the Taliban and establishing better infrastructure. Though how many of them truly want us there, or feel they are safer in the long-term with all sorts of mechanized death flying over their heads every day? We have made such great strides in the economic and social infrastructure of Afghanistan, but I fail to give credit to the bombs or bullets for that progress.

How about a third alternative? Perhaps the U.S. military is fighting for America's interests abroad. Sure, we might say that we are trying to protect the liberties of other nations and establish democratic governments, but maybe there are underlying motives. I would be the last to bring up the tired old "oil" theory, but there are many complex issues in the Middle East or North Africa that a regional U.S. military presence can effect.

As I thought about these different perspectives, each seemed to tumble back upon one another. Some of these theories are certainly viable, but none seemed to fit the bigger picture for me. I think in many cases, through a number of books I've read of first-hand accounts of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, these soldiers simply fight for brotherhood, for the "man in the foxhole next to them", to use a famous quote. Their struggles as a unit are seen as a rite of passage, a way of proving oneself as a man and a human being in general. For the more troubled youths, it is a way of learning obedience, and loyalty, and of obtaining a deep friendship with your fellow soldiers. As one come so close to death on the battlefield every day, one matures at a pace one's fellow 20-some-year-old's couldn't imagine. Thus, if anything, these motives seem surprisingly selfish, using a very serious conflict for relatively non-serious personal psychological gain.

Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.

Enjoying your summer vacation little one?

Actually I'm in college and taking summer classes, so I don't have a vacation, but I appreciate your concern. How's your summer? Also, just because I'm young doesn't mean I or my opinion should be belittled due to my age. If a five-year-old could explain to me the inner workings of the global economic system, I wouldn't laugh in his face just because they have a passaphire in their mouth. Save replies for actual intellectual response, not just meaningless one-liners.

 

[numan]

Save replies for actual intellectual response, not just meaningless one-liners.

Why should he, if the swine knows that he can get your goat?

.

 

[sambino510]

To have high crime here in the US there are the the various factors that come together to create "the perfect storm."

First, as bad as it sounds, certain ethnics groups are statistically more violent. It isn't about profiling or racism, it just the way it is. I doubt if you can stomach much of it, but here is a basic overview of Dept of Justice stats:

F.B.I and U.S. Justice department Black vs White Crime statistics. - YouTube

So this is about blacks and hispanics, or about those that find themselves at the butt end of a society with vast inequality, prejudice, and a fixation on material gain? Because when white socities have found themselves in stressful sociological conditions, violence and death have certainly been no less prevailant. WW1 &2, the long conflict in N Ireland, the war in the former Yugoslavia- all rage against real or perceived wrongs, that led to mass bloodletting. Your ghetto gangbangers are amatuers by comparsion.




You'd better watch out for 9thIDdoc. He said he was going to guard the constitution with his gun, so keep your head down. The Miranda law is a basic freedom, one that reafirms the constitution, and is indeed one of the cornerstones of the very "freedoms" that gun enthusiasts claim they love so much. If you are going to have freedom, it must be for everyone, otherwise your freedoms will be at the whim of any traffic cop that comes along, and misinterprets the depth of your suntan.



Deaths and beatings in police custody. Do you think this is going to heal the vast racial divide in the US, or increase respect for the somewhat shaky police agencies in the country?



In fact the US has some of the most draconian laws in the civilized world, including the death penalty, extensive use of life sentences, long prison terms for minor offences, and terrible consequences for anything to do with drugs. It also has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Yet crime is rampant. A wider view is needed, but will likely not be forthcoming.



Yes, there are many guns in the home in Switzerland, but not because emotionally disturbed kids have bought them at gun shows, and are now plotting to get even with their rotten teachers, who insist they attend school. They have them because they have joined the army. It is hard to think of a more comprehensive vetting process than joining the military, and taking all the associated tests and assessments. This is a horse of a different color. And even so, Switzerland is not without its problems. Gun deaths there are still quite a bit higher per capita than in comparible European countries, although still lower than in the US. And regardless, if social conditions in the US are such that gun violence is widespread, then measures are needed to address this, no matter the experience of other countries.



Of course they are the same thing Mr S. If your wife, or child, or friend killed themselves with a readily available gun, would it be any less painful than if they had been killed by homicide or by accident? Deaths due to the availability of guns: that is the issue here.



You have cherry picked some relatively afflluent, socially cohesive communities to indicate lower crime rates. Some thing like Switzerland, hmmm?

I'm too impatient to mulitquote everything, but I'll try to hit on some of your concerns and biases.

As for Miranda---it isn't needed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just another dodge for criminals to escape justice.

As for higher Black violence, that's just the way it is. Humans fall under the same laws of nature that all animals do. Besides the obivous physical differences, intelligence and behavior can be inherited traits that follow ethnic groups. There are all kinds of snakes, but the Black Mambas are the most aggressive and dangerous. Their brains are hardly different than the others. To think that the environment or things like "racism" are the primary causes of Black violence is like someone believing the earth was flat 400 years ago. Anyone now publically saying anything other than the PC line will be burned at the stake. If "racism is the primary cause of Black ills, then why is every country in Sub-Saharan Africa a basket case? Evil Westerners haven't controlled most of them for over 50 years.

Ask anyone here if they are worried more about other people killing themselves with guns, or other people killing them with any weapon...in other words...are they more worried about crime? And sucicide are not considered crimes. The "gun deaths" stats you gun-phobes dish out are designed to mislead.

What good are all the laws if the people living in the hood and other high crime areas don't obey them? Show me some conviction rate data for Detroit, Chicago or any other gangland.

As for the areas I cherry-picked, look at the colored graphs below. It would be more accurate to have the maps done city or county, but I'm limited to the studies done.

On the green map, the darker the area, the more guns per household (done by Harvard gun grabbers BTW). One the Red map the darker states are states with the most violent crimes. Notice how in almost every case the more guns = the less violent crime. Go figure.

View attachment 26769

View attachment 26770

As for violent crime, not "gun deaths" the Swiss are always far below the UK.

One last thing to chew on. Would you feel more threatened in a gun collector's house with a hundred guns well supervised, or in a crack house with ten crackheads and just one stolen handgun?

Once again I have to take issue with the fact you seem to describe certain ethnic groups as inferior to others. I understand me and you just have different viewpoints, but here's my view on why Africa is a "basket case"; one must look at the history.

Sure, white people have not had a major presence there in quite some time, except for maybe in South Africa where this is still a large Dutch and other European population. In many of their mines, for gold and other gems, it still seems it's a white European man as the boss and poor black laborers as the workers. However, the multi-faceted issues that Africa faces today are still due to its colonial history. The African nations did not draw the borderlines; Europeans did, cutting through racial and cultural divides like butter and pitting all these nations against each other in a continental free-for-all. Centuries of Europeans and Americans stealing both labor and resources from the area have left them under-developed, with little to no infrastructure in most countries. I assure you, I don't blame everything on white people (just for the record, I'm white myself), but we certainly have a lot to answer for and just because we're not there anymore doesn't mean we can't be held accountable. My overall point being, these problems are not due to an inherent savagery in the Black psyche; that's far too simple. The same principle applies to racial issues in the U.S., like gang violence.

But that isn't even the whole reason. Many Pacific Islanders and African tribespeople simply choose to live that rural, village lifestyle. That doesn't mean they're unintelligent or un-able to progress technologically; it's cultural. Just because a white man in the Sierra Nevada mountain range chooses to spend his days hunting deer and not surfing the Web doesn't mean he's psychologically incapable of such complicated thought.

 

[Mushroom]

Poor and semi-rural? Its a commuter suburb of Atlanta, is it not?

Only within the last decade. Yes, the "urban sprawl" in Atlanta is spreading, but it is only within the last decade that it has started to include Kennesaw (like only in the last 2 decades has Palmdale been considered a commuter suburb of LA).

Today, Kennesaw maintains a low crime rate, but not remarkably so, compared with other Georgia towns of similar size. It reported 21 violent crimes in 2011, according to the FBI's uniform crime statistics database. That put it well below Douglasville, which recorded 179 violent crimes, but above Milton (14 violent crimes) and Peachtree City (eight violent crimes).

Interesting cities that were picked however.

Milton is a rather rich community, incorporated only 7 years ago, and having an average income roughly double that of Kennesaw.

Peachtree also has an average income that is double that of Kennesaw. In fact, it is quite a "rich area", because of such employers as Panasonic, TDK and NCR. Many people in fact tend to think of the town and it's "Golf Cart Gridlock", not exactly a problem in the ghettos that I am aware of.

Ah yes, and Douglasville. While cities such as Peachtree have above normal marriage rates (70%) and incomes, Douglasville does not. An average income that is 20-25% lower then Kennesaw, considered an attached subburb of Atlanta, and a married couple rate of only 41%, it is not surprising that it has more crime, a lot more crime.

This is why I have never taken the LA Times very seriously, even when I lived there. They are taking statistics from a ghetto, and 2 White Bread Yuppie neighborhoods as comparisons for crime rates, not exactly honest when you look at it with knowledge.

 

[Mushroom]

If a five-year-old could explain to me the inner workings of the global economic system, I wouldn't laugh in his face just because they have a passaphire in their mouth. Save replies for actual intellectual response, not just meaningless one-liners.

That is actually pretty simple. Sell things for more then it costs you to make them. Sell what is needed elsewhere, and buy what you need for the best price possible.

And if you have a supply of something absolutely worthless, try to make it the new fad, so that everybody will be screaming to buy them.

Oh, and don't let your money get to valuable, because then nobody can afford to buy your products. But do not let it be to worthless either, or you risk loosing control of your own businesses.

 

[High_Gravity]

Note: Though I question many things in my writing, none of it is meant as disrespect towards our current or fallen soldiers. If anything, I believe their sacrifice is a mis-allocation of some of the best and brightest minds of my generation. I simply think those brains could be better put to use elsewhere rather than as bullet-holders, and if we are going to put them on the battlefield, we better be damn sure that's the right thing to do.

July 4th has recently passed, and although we certainly reserve holidays like Memorial Day to honor our troops, Independence Day also is an enormous tribute to our forces abroad. As I sat watching my hometown's annual parade, soldiers with rifles and flags marched by, Huey helicopters flew over, and the people to get the biggest cheers were certainly the veterans, old and new. However, I couldn't help but wonder if these people really were fighting in my name, in the name of the people around me.

As I thought deeper about this whole question, I decided to take the war in Afghanistan as an example. Originally, this war was started in order to take revenge against Al Qaeda and find Bin Laden. This particular, early part of the mission was maybe fighting for "me", or most of the "me"'s who wanted to fight back after a direct attack on our soil. Nonetheless, now we are in a deep, complicated process of nation-building, with little to no way out. So are the American soldiers firing at young Afghan Taliban soldiers, or accidentally blowing up a few children here and there actually fighting for MY personal freedom? MY liberty? I'm not so sure.

So then who are our soldiers fighting and dying for? The Afghan people? That seems to be the only logical alternative, as the official mission of the U.S. military is to improve the Afghan way of life by getting rid of the Taliban and establishing better infrastructure. Though how many of them truly want us there, or feel they are safer in the long-term with all sorts of mechanized death flying over their heads every day? We have made such great strides in the economic and social infrastructure of Afghanistan, but I fail to give credit to the bombs or bullets for that progress.

How about a third alternative? Perhaps the U.S. military is fighting for America's interests abroad. Sure, we might say that we are trying to protect the liberties of other nations and establish democratic governments, but maybe there are underlying motives. I would be the last to bring up the tired old "oil" theory, but there are many complex issues in the Middle East or North Africa that a regional U.S. military presence can effect.

As I thought about these different perspectives, each seemed to tumble back upon one another. Some of these theories are certainly viable, but none seemed to fit the bigger picture for me. I think in many cases, through a number of books I've read of first-hand accounts of soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, these soldiers simply fight for brotherhood, for the "man in the foxhole next to them", to use a famous quote. Their struggles as a unit are seen as a rite of passage, a way of proving oneself as a man and a human being in general. For the more troubled youths, it is a way of learning obedience, and loyalty, and of obtaining a deep friendship with your fellow soldiers. As one come so close to death on the battlefield every day, one matures at a pace one's fellow 20-some-year-old's couldn't imagine. Thus, if anything, these motives seem surprisingly selfish, using a very serious conflict for relatively non-serious personal psychological gain.

Overall, the motivation behind joining the military is far too varied and complex to explain in one particular theory. However, it seems to me that very few soldiers are concerned with the politics of their actual mission, and the consequences of their failures, or even the consequences of their successes. Rather, they obey orders, and fight to their dying breath and the breath of the man next to them until they are told they can return to their families. They return to our country, and we praise them for fighting for us. I regret to say it, but I cannot say a single soldier is fighting for ME personally. I respect their sacrifice as only one who greatly regrets it could, but I cannot support their mission. I hope one day we can find a way to provide to the young, great minds of our generation a way of gaining the same ideals that the military life provides, while avoiding the blood sport that currently accompanies it.

Enjoying your summer vacation little one?

Actually I'm in college and taking summer classes, so I don't have a vacation, but I appreciate your concern. How's your summer? Also, just because I'm young doesn't mean I or my opinion should be belittled due to my age. If a five-year-old could explain to me the inner workings of the global economic system, I wouldn't laugh in his face just because they have a passaphire in their mouth. Save replies for actual intellectual response, not just meaningless one-liners.

I was just wondering, your age and inexperience speaks volumes from the OP, thats all.

 

[High_Gravity]

Save replies for actual intellectual response, not just meaningless one-liners.

Why should he, if the swine knows that he can get your goat?

.

Nobodies kicking dicks out of your mouth buddy, relax.

 

[Auteur]

I'm too impatient to mulitquote everything, but I'll try to hit on some of your concerns and biases.

As for Miranda---it isn't needed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Just another dodge for criminals to escape justice.

It may not be needed by you, but it is needed by that dumb schmuck who falls afoul of sloppy or biased police work, and doesn't understand that he has rights, and doesn't have to cede them to anyone wearing a uniform. This is an important aspect of universal freedom and democracy, concepts you claim (correct me if I am wrong) to support.

[
As for higher Black violence, that's just the way it is. Humans fall under the same laws of nature that all animals do. Besides the obivous physical differences, intelligence and behavior can be inherited traits that follow ethnic groups.

Intelligence is not a trait that follows ethnic groups. You've been watching Fox News again, haven't you? Some dysfunctional traits can be inherited, but not across the board of a racial group.

[
There are all kinds of snakes, but the Black Mambas are the most aggressive and dangerous. Their brains are hardly different than the others. To think that the environment or things like "racism" are the primary causes of Black violence is like someone believing the earth was flat 400 years ago. Anyone now publically saying anything other than the PC line will be burned at the stake. If "racism is the primary cause of Black ills, then why is every country in Sub-Saharan Africa a basket case? Evil Westerners haven't controlled most of them for over 50 years.

To begin with, black people are not snakes, although you may think so. There are multiple and complex reasons why people or social groups act violently. Blacks in the US have a history of slavery, lynchings, and discrimination, which no doubt goes into the mix. But these are social, psychological, and economic problems, not ones of race. Your own president is black. He is also a professor of law, and an articulate speaker. Are you going to tell us the white DNA in his system overcame the inferior black DNA?

Up until the '60s, in the US south "white" violence was over the top, with blacks being lynched just for fun, and on some occasions white activists were killed too, for having the nerve to suggest human rights had a place here. Are you going to tell us this was just traits within the white southerners DNA, or, where the reasons here more complex?

As for Africa- you're right. It is a mess. And so is Central America, Russia, Brazil, and a number of other places. The reasons for this could fill a book. The simplistic answer is to guess that if these folks look different, then they are different. Doing some background reading will disabuse you of this idea.

Ask anyone here if they are worried more about other people killing themselves with guns, or other people killing them with any weapon...in other words...are they more worried about crime? And sucicide are not considered crimes. The "gun deaths" stats you gun-phobes dish out are designed to mislead.

Implicit in your statement is the idea that if someone kills themselves, then it is of no account- write them off. A death is a death, and if it can be prevented, that's generally good. This is the point. Are you aware, by the way, that a great many US military vets have killed themselves? Do you figure they count, or not?

[
What good are all the laws if the people living in the hood and other high crime areas don't obey them? Show me some conviction rate data for Detroit, Chicago or any other gangland.

Nearly one percent of the US population is incarcerated. That's massively higher than any comparible country.

As for the areas I cherry-picked, look at the colored graphs below. It would be more accurate to have the maps done city or county, but I'm limited to the studies done.

On the green map, the darker the area, the more guns per household (done by Harvard gun grabbers BTW). One the Red map the darker states are states with the most violent crimes. Notice how in almost every case the more guns = the less violent crime. Go figure.

View attachment 26769

View attachment 26770

You have made the classic error in interpreting statistics. Because two events are correlated, it does not necessarily imply cause. I get up and shave every morning, and every morning the sun comes up. Using your logic, I could say my shaving causes the sun to come up. Get the picture?

As for violent crime, not "gun deaths" the Swiss are always far below the UK.

Yep. But gun deaths per captia are far higher in Switzerland. We can guess the reason.

[
One last thing to chew on. Would you feel more threatened in a gun collector's house with a hundred guns well supervised, or in a crack house with ten crackheads and just one stolen handgun?

I feel much more secure where I am, in a country where violence is downplayed, and gun ownership severly restricted.