Anti-Semitism Czar Attacks Israel -- Wierd Choice

[BT]

I don't think dope smoking has its own constitutional amendment.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't think dope smoking has its own constitutional amendment.>>

That was just an oversight.  They were very busy.

[BT]

Perhaps their hemp supplies caught on fire

[Michael Tee]

Very likely.  Something must have distracted them.

[Plane]

<<You are not being rational unless you include all the factors , not just the ones that appeal to you.
<<IN what american City were harsher anti gun measures followed by falling crime rates?>>

I never advocated municipal gun control as any sort of solution, so I don't see that I have to explain its failure. 

The problem is national - - if I can buy a gun in Dallas it doesn't matter if I can't in Philadelphia.  That gun from Dallas will find me in Philly or wherever else I live through normal market forces.  Failure of municipal gun control is a red herring - - the issue is national gun control, not municipal gun control.

Then no study of the question can be valid, guns are international .

[Plane]

<<The issue is the people who use guns to resolve problems. >>

If you CHOOSE to make the people the issue, then that would be a legitimate issue.  But since the people are not easily persuaded out of their habits, if one of those habits is a resort to guns to resolve problems, then you have an issue that you can't resolve.  The people will always be who they are, and as long as they can get guns, they will use them as they have in the past.  Creating unacceptably high national homicide rates.

Or you could choose to make guns and not people the issue.  If the issue were guns, the control of the supply, while not a simple matter, could be achieved a lot easier than modifying the conduct of the people who use guns.   So I would say, faced with one issue you CAN'T control very easily, and one you CAN control, focus on that issue, drying up the gun supply.  My belief is, once that issue is resolved in favour of the public interest, the national homicide rate will go into a dramatic decline.

<<It's a cultural issue, not a choice of weapons issue.>>

So's smoking dope, but the legislature doesn't hestitate to take repressive action against all who follow the culture.  Not very effective, but I bet that's because dope is a lot more fun than guns and attracts many more users.

You are ignoreing the facts that are availible.
Since the election of Barack H. Obama to the presidency gun sales have been very high and ammunition sales have taxed the production ability of all of our bullet plants.


Yet.

With no change yet in law or enforcement of laws at all Homicide rates have fallen to levels comprable to the late sixties.

When there are more guns your thinking would lead you to beleive that there would be more gun violence, but now that there are more guns than ever before in all history these crimes continue their long gradual decline.

I know it is impossible for you to be wrong about this , so how do you square the facts beig entirely contrary to your opinion?

[Michael Tee]

<<Then no study of the question can be valid, guns are international .>>

Here's a question for you - - if you visit a foreign country, on your return to the U.S.A., do you or do you not have to declare all the firearms (if any) that you are bringing back with you?

[Plane]

<<Then no study of the question can be valid, guns are international .>>

Here's a question for you - - if you visit a foreign country, on your return to the U.S.A., do you or do you not have to declare all the firearms (if any) that you are bringing back with you?

Same as I do if I have to visit DC or Chicago?


So in some nations where all of the guns are illeagal , only scofflaws have them, but you don't see the problem with that?

[Michael Tee]

<<Same as I do if I have to visit DC or Chicago?>>

I don't get it.  You don't have to cross any border check-points to visit DC or Chicago.


<<So in some nations where all of the guns are illeagal , only scofflaws have them, but you don't see the problem with that?>>

Same problem as that in which where murder is illegal, only scofflaws commit murder.

What are we supposed to do?  Develop such a fear of scofflaws that to accommodate them, we abolish whatever it was that made them scofflaws so now they can do as they please without a criminal stigma?  That's insane.  The answer to a scofflaw, whether a murderer or a gun-owner, is to hunt the bastards down, imprison them, with progressively longer sentences for repeat offenders, and higher sentences if the first range of sentences doesn't act as a sufficient deterrent.  For any "scofflaw" whose gun is used to injure or kill another person in a criminal act, capital punishment, no exceptions, no second chances. 

I think you COULD effectively control guns, we just have to develop a criminal justice system in which the scofflaws have a lot more to fear from the law than we do from the scofflaws.

[Plane]

Yes you are insane.

The answer is to encourage widespread gun ownership just as President BHO has inadvertly done , thereby maximiseing the number of responsible citizens who are well armed, as we have just done, and murder rates will fall , as they just have.

As to locking up more murderers , will you stand for it if it is not racialy equal?

How about gender equal?

WE have so many people locked up now it is starting to seem rediculous, more is not necessacerily better.

I wish were were raising them in a more old fashioned way , with greater individual disipline there were fewer locked up and  fewer in need of being locked up.


I know the real reason that the murder rate is falling is demographic , older people murder less than younger do.

But the complete independance of the murder rate from the gun ownership rate is still fully demonstrated.

[Michael Tee]

<<As to locking up more murderers , will you stand for it if it is not racialy equal?>>

Sure, if they're all murderers.

<<How about gender equal?>>

Never has been gender equal, never will be.

<<WE have so many people locked up now it is starting to seem rediculous, more is not necessacerily better.>>

Of course it's ridiculous.  That is why you need capital punishment.  In the U.S.S.R. nobody got a sentence longer than 15 years.  If what the guy did was so bad that 15 years was an inadequate sentence, then the only solution was to put him out of his misery immediately after conviction and sentencing.  Why the hell support the guy for over 15 years if he's such a bastard?

<<I wish were were raising them in a more old fashioned way , with greater individual disipline there were fewer locked up and  fewer in need of being locked up.>>

The old fashioned way won't work, probably never did.  They just got away with more crimes since the police were less scientific and/or there were less crimes on the books.  The solution IMHO is concentrated Head Start and other early childhood development programs.  Really gotta focus resources to make a difference.

[Plane]

Never the less Murder rates rose right along with restrictive gun laws and have fallen right along with increased gun ownership.

Say it isn't so if you want but you are just obeying prejudice if you can't find the facts.

[Michael Tee]

Most people are equating the fall in the murder rates with the demographics of an aging population.  It's totally illogical to link it to a rise in gun ownership.