Announcement

**line-em-up** · 12-20-2012, 10:18 PM

THE DRUG WAR.

In England they have a drug war, but they do not focus on possession. Meanwhile we lock up nonviolent criminals at the almost the exact same rate as violent ones in America. Canada has legal marijuana in some areas, and has for years, and takes a very relaxed attitude toward drug use in general (although they have laws which are largely unenforced).

Just like during the Prohibition of alcohol, murder rates have soared under the Drug War. So has our incarcerations and incarceration rates...we now lock up more people in total than any other country in the world (yes, even the vastly more populated China and India)! That's total and per capita! "Land of the Free"? Think again. "Land of the prisoner" is more accurate. We arrested more than 750,000 people last year for just marijuana! 86% of those arrests were for small amounts; simple possession charges. It's not only tyrannical, it's a waste of resources which fuels a black market run by criminal sociopaths, and takes resources away from fighting actual violent crime like theft, property damage, assault, rape, child abuse, and murder.

This War on Drugs (and personal adult freedom) has given us the street gang phenomenon on the scales we see today. Chicago alone has dozens of separate drug gangs. They also have a high murder rate to go along with super-strict gun control in comparison to other cities...because guns aren't the problem, the Drug War is. Many of their gangs can trace their roots to either the beginning of Prohibition, or the beginning of the modern Drug War.

In Honduras where gun murders are most common and horribly frequent, they have gun rights...but they also have a country which is a main thoroughfaire for the illegal drug trade. By comparison, Uruguay has almost the same gun ownership rates as the USA and the same gun rights as well, yet they have a lower gun murder rate because they have no war on drugs. In fact, their govt is seriously considering selling marijuana to its citizens to get the drug trade completely above-board!

If you want our rate of murder to decrease via guns you don't take away guns, you end the Drug War. If you have any doubts about this go look at the murder rates after alcohol Prohibition began, and then after it ended. Also look at countries that have already ended their Drug Wars.

Crime rates in Prohibition rose immediately 78%, 24% in just one year from 1920-1921 (the first year)

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/0049...e_Rate.htm

The murder rate was cut in nearly half (40% decline), from 10 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000 when Prohibition ended. This was directly caused by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-...as-failure

If we want to half our gun murders, legalize drugs. If you want to further bring it down address the next major cause; domestic violence. Spanking children leads to many issues surrounding violence, but especially domestic violence. If domestic violence is how you raise children, then expect them to use it themselves as adults. A small number of those people will kill a domestic relative or partner. The gun simply facilitates it.

The final point I'll make is that if only .026% of gun owners murder someone with a gun, then 99.974% of gun owners don't kill someone with a gun. It's hard to argue we need to punish the 99.974% for what the .026% do. That kind of illogic is used in schools to punish classrooms full of kids for what one anonymous child has done...and it leads to bullying, because children then ostracize their peers who are guilty (and they don't know how to ostracize responsibly, so it ends up in bullying). We should use a more logical approach on adults. In a nation of 315 million people, with a Drug War raging and domestic violence against kids being the norm, a 99.974% responsible gun owner rate is unbelievably good. Perspective, instead of irrational fear and knee-jerk reaction, is what helps here.

ADDED:

Someone said they thought we could half gun murder by ending the drug war, but the we'd double the drunk/drugged driving deaths...but that is illogical. No one has any problem getting drugs now, and they already drive on them now. Also, when drugs were legalized across the board in other nations the usage only went up slightly, and in some nations actually decreased. Plus, when we re-legalized alcohol the usage here only went up slightly, while alcoholism went down (especially among minors), and the murder rate fell in that first year (1933) 40%. THINK through why your criticisms might not be logical...and Bing or Google them to see people have already answered these illogical and/or irrational reservations.

Lastly, someone else said they would never change their mind about being anti-gun no matter the evidence...but again, that is irrational. There are irrational people who won't fly even though they ADMIT cars are more likely to kill them. They drive but won't fly...that is irrational. Guns are less likely to kill a kid than swimming pools. How afraid are you of swimming pools? Cars kill more people than guns...how afraid are you of cars? Gun murder is almost 3 times less likely to kill you than the normal flu virus...how afraid are you of guns vs the flu? Being rational means fearing things based on thr actual RATIONAL chance they have to kill you, not the IRRATIONAL fear of HOW it might kill you. Guns are not nearly as dangerous as the media and most anti-gun people think they are.

In fact, more lives are saved in the USA every year than are taken by guns every year. They are in reality, indisputably, a NET GAIN of life. If only 2% of the 750,000 crimes prevented by private guns (FBI stat) save one life (or 1% saves 2 lives, etc.), then more lives are saved than taken. BTW...sutdies show many more than that are saved by guns...the estimate by Clinton Administration study was 2 million lives per year...which might be high...and other more intensive studies show the number to be in the tens of thousands, up to 200,000, per year. But EVEN IF the number was only 15,000 as I suggested with my 2% number, we're still looking at more lives saved than murdered.

FURTHER ADDED:

A study done by the Harvard Jounal of Law and Public Policy reports some interesting statistics.

The study, which appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

404 Not Found

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs...online.pdf

STILL FURTHER ADDED:

It appears there is also NO correlation between single parenthood, violent video games, movies, TV shows, music, one religion or another (or lack thereof), etc.

Like guns, those are just NOT causal to high gun murder rates, despite the illogic used to say they are. (To be clear, it is intuitive to think guns and these other things cause the problem...but there is NO factual basis for it, and the factual nature of things is often deductively logical, and counter-intuitive.)

**line-em-up** · 12-20-2012, 10:18 PM

ADDED:

Paul Harvey on Guns

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

Consider:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

Me: And That's The Rest of the Story!

ADDED:

For those who ask "what 'tyranny' has the USA experienced to warrant the right to keep and bear arms", as if we as Americans are immune to having a government that can turn tyrannical, I give you the following list of tyranny's methodology, and the list of things our government has already done to meet this definition:

The methodology of tyranny:

The methods used to overthrow a constitutional order and establish a tyranny are well-known. However, despite this awareness, it is surprising how those who have no intention of perpetrating a tyranny can slip into these methods and bring about a tyranny despite their best intentions. Tyranny does not have to be deliberate. Tyrants can fool themselves as thoroughly as they fool everyone else.

Control of public information and opinion: It begins with withholding information, and leads to putting out false or misleading information. A government can develop ministries of propaganda under many guises. They typically call it "public information" or "marketing".

Vote fraud used to prevent the election of reformers: It doesn't matter which of the two major party candidates are elected if no real reformer can get nominated, and when news services start knowing the outcomes of elections before it is possible for them to know, then the votes are not being honestly counted.

Undue official influence on trials and juries: Nonrandom selection of jury panels, exclusion of those opposed to the law, exclusion of the jury from hearing argument on the law, exclusion of private prosecutors from access to the grand jury, and prevention of parties and their counsels from making effective arguments or challenging the government.

Usurpation of undelegated powers: This is usually done with popular support for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction, but it soon leads to the deprivation of rights of minorities and individuals.

Seeking a government monopoly on the capability and use of armed force: The first signs are efforts to register or restrict the possession and use of firearms, initially under the guise of "protecting" the public, which, when it actually results in increased crime, provides a basis for further disarmament efforts affecting more people and more weapons.

Militarization of law enforcement: Declaring a "war on crime" that becomes a war on civil liberties. Preparation of military forces for internal policing duties.

Infiltration and subversion of citizen groups that could be forces for reform: Internal spying and surveillance is the beginning. A sign is false prosecutions of their leaders.

Suppression of investigators and whistleblowers: When people who try to uncover high level wrongdoing are threatened, that is a sign the system is not only riddled with corruption, but that the corruption has passed the threshold into active tyranny.

Use of the law for competition suppression: It begins with the dominant faction winning support by paying off their supporters and suppressing their supporters' competitors, but leads to public officials themselves engaging in illegal activities and using the law to suppress independent competitors. A good example of this is narcotics trafficking.

Subversion of internal checks and balances: This involves the appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, and who are then induced to do illegal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches.

Creation of a class of officials who are above the law: This is indicated by dismissal of charges for wrongdoing against persons who are "following orders".

Increasing dependency of the people on government: The classic approach to domination of the people is to first take everything they have away from them, then make them compliant with the demands of the rulers to get anything back again.

Increasing public ignorance of their civic duties and reluctance to perform them: When the people avoid doing things like voting and serving in militias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.

Use of staged events to produce popular support: Acts of terrorism OR WAR, blamed on political opponents OR FOREIGN NATIONS, followed immediately with well-prepared proposals for increased powers and budgets for suppressive agencies. Sometimes called a Reichstag plot.

Conversion of rights into privileges: Requiring licenses and permits for doing things that the government does not have the delegated power to restrict, except by due process in which the burden of proof is on the petitioner.

Political correctness: Many if not most people are susceptible to being recruited to engage in repressive actions against disfavored views or behaviors, and led to pave the way for the dominance of tyrannical government.

(The italicized and capitalized parts are my additions, and the rest is found here originally):

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

http://www.constitution.org/tyr/prin_tyr.htm

List of our government's transgressions into tyranny:

☑ DRONES
☑ OBAMACARE
☑ NDAA
☑ PATRIOT ACT
☑ WAR IN LIBYA
☑ WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
☑ WAR IN PAKISTAN
☑ DID I MENTION DRONES?
☑ GOLDMAN SACHS
☑ MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
☑ GUANTANAMO
☑ ASSASSINATING U.S. CITIZENS
☑ WAR ON DRUGS
☑ BAILOUTS
☑ AND EVERYTHING ELSE!

**line-em-up** · 12-20-2012, 10:19 PM

Under "everything else" I'll list the following:

1. The use of "national security" to keep secret things that are not apart of security matters, but instead shield the state from scandal.

2. Voter fraud AND suppression, plus the laws that restrict competition with the 2 Parties that control the political landscape. The includes the debates that are televised (which are run by the 2 Parties, but weren't always).

3. Loading juries with people who are bias, and the Supreme Court's purposeful change to our law that used to allow people to be instructed by the defense as to their right of jury nullification (the ability to vote "not guilty' because you disagree with the law itself), and limiting the defense from arguing whether the law is unjust or not. They also exclude anyone who says they know about that jury nullification right (which is a legal right) from jury service.

4. The tremendous list of things the state does that are neither enumerated in the Constitution nor listed in the Amendments (which are the only 2 places the state can derive their powers from), and the complicity of the Supreme Court in subverting the Amendment process that is supposed to be used to change, add or delete, those powers, by simply declaring things not in the enumerated powers or Amendments as "Constitutional".

5. The inability of private firms to be hired to compete with the monopolization on policing, thereby rendering their costs higher, quality of service lower, and accountability being non-existent (like it does with all coerced monopolies). Some places like San Francisco do have private police that are allowed limited competition with the state's force, but only because it PREDATES the state police force. In other words you don't require state police to have police, because they originated in the private sector and are to this day ranked as a better service by customers (citizens). They are also much less likely to beat and kill people (let alone talk to them like chldren).

6. The constant militarization of police should be obvious. I mean drones and camouflage? What do they need jungle print camo for in the city and towns of America? It is a pure intimidation tactic.

7. The state constantly infiltrates and subverts those groups that wish to stand up to its power peacefully. "Agent Provocateurs" are a fact of life in America. They infiltrate every major peaceful protest.

8. Whistleblowers can face the death penalty, especially if they release proof of war crimes or the like. This relates directly to using the guise of "national security" to promote secrecy about things that are not about security, but instead are about hiding scandal and sickening psychopathic behavior on the part of the collective institution, or individual in it, or both.

9. As I mentioned, using laws to not only limit competition with the 2 Parties, but with police, fire service, military, road management and production/ownership, welfare, money, interest rates, and a huge list of things I'm not go to mention are fact of life. All of these things predate the state, and used to function without a state coerced monopoly on them. If they allowed competition they'd actually have to prove they provide the better service...not something they (or the public sector union heads in bed with them - not to be confused with rank and file union members) want to do.

10. Checks and balances, like courts reviewing the assassination of U.S. citizens and warrentless wiretaps and searches, have continuously been undermined.

11. The government is above the law. Everyone knows we'd go to prison or be HEAVILY fined if we did many of the things they simply lose their jobs over (if that). Cheating on their taxes, sexually harassing people, scandals involving stolen and embezzled funds, etc., etc. And their cronies in the private sector get away with it along with them. The Pardoning of terrible criminal acts upon their cronies happens every time a President or Governor leaves Office.

12. Dependancy on government has risen, whether it's welfare, medical, housing, retiremet, PHONES, REFRIGERATORS, etc.

13. People avoid voting like the plague, which isn't altogether bad or wrong thing...but they even avoid voting for people they KNOW are right and instead vote for who they THINK will win. That's a personal form of selling out, and it's a collective form of endorsing unethical things because you want to treat politics like a team sport where rooting for the winning team is better for self satisfaction than rooting for the team that doesn't cheat to win. This also shows up in avoidance of jury duty (which could be made voluntary if they allowed jurors to be professionals just like judges and lawyers - which would undermine their attempts to keep jurors ignorant of the laws and jury nullification), which could stop untold numbers of people from going to prison over bad laws. Again, jury nullification is important to a free society...and we are kept ignorant of that right BY LAW.

14. Staged events or outright lies have started more wars than actual attacks or credible threats against us. Vietnam via the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the WMDs in Iraq, the Lusitania being an innocent passenger ship with no arms smuggling purposes, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

15. The conversion of rights into privileges, like search and seizure protections, the right to keep and bear arms, the universal freedom of speech where it does not cause DIRECT physical harm (it is legal, or used to be, to say things that you do not believe will cause actual violence, or things you do believe will cause violence but do not have a likelihood to actually cause harm despite your notions), the right to trial (that all depends, now), the right to life not being deprived without jury trial (they now assasinate USA citizens without even proving to a judge it is justified...so they can effectively kill any of us at any time if they wish to), etc.,etc.,etc.

16. Political correctness is used to stifle dissent. For example, just one way is to call anyone you disagree with racist no matter how unrelated to racism it actually is. Another way is to insist of using certain semantics and lingusitics to limit the expression of unpopular but logical ideas. The idea that words are cause for violence legally, or that words are equivalent to violence. This shows up in everyday life, but is reflective of how politicians are treated by the media...where they say things that are obviously not meant the way the media spins it. The public simply follows suit on the trend.

ADDED:

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm individual citizens, not just members of militias, so they could overthrow a tyrannical government. Every Founder said this and only this, except Adams (who still wanted individuals armed, but only for self defense, and he thought militias must follow the orders of tyrants regardless because he was a law fetishist as opposed to someone more agianst tyranny and for liberty even if it meant breaking tyrannical laws). Some people have suggested to me other false revisionist history nonsense, and so I leave this link full of other links and facts to prove the case. If further necessary I will start quoting the Founders and challenging them to match me quote for quote (which they can't).

GunCite-Second Amendment-Original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment

http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant the pre-existing right of individuals, to keep and bear arms. Evidence of such is presented on this page.

The most important links on that site are these ones:

"Is there Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?"

GunCite: Is There Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?

http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

"Quotes from the Founding Fathers and Their Contemporaries"

GunCite: Second Amendment-Quotes from the Framers and their contemporaries

http://guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Quotes from the Framers and their contemporaries on the right to keep and bear arms.

Good luck defeating that with some semantical trick about the wording or puncuation of the 2nd Amendment. They mispelled words in the Constitution too...I suppose next you'll argue we have somehow mistakenly mispelled words all these years and the Constitution had them right all these years? Enough with the illogic and irrationale...non sequiturs are not logical arguments.

#1.17 - Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:47 PM EST

**line-em-up** · 12-20-2012, 10:19 PM

Another post from someone else
======================

Dav1bg

So we have armed guards at banks but not schools, therefore we care more for our money than our children’s lives. Are armed guards effective? When was the last mass murder at a bank? Going postal: the term came from an UNARMED group. I noticed that they didn’t call it going bankal!!! And I bet there are plenty of people who would like to go bankal. Therefore being armed is both a deterrent and a safety edge. The term over educated idiots comes to mind when I think of our schools.

NOTE TO POLITICIANS: If you pass a law that makes my new $1500 assault rifle illegal I will make a note of your name and vote for anybody else in November. Also note, there are 300 million guns in the US; that is a lot of votes. The term political suicide comes to mind.

Because our government refuses to protect our children I can’t help but get the feeling that they are using our feelings for our children’s safety to get us to give up our 2nd amendment rights???

Gun laws are effective?? Look at Canada: In America 80% of the prison population is black, and about the rest are Hispanic. I don’t see blacks and Hispanics in Canada, so I expect that they would have a lower crime rate. Apples and oranges comparison. Look at Mexico: Hispanic population, whole towns getting wiped out by illegal gun toting gangs. Their government threw the population to the wolves with gun control.

Why is our government loading up on ammunition while at the same time trying to pass gun laws??

Why Does The U.S. Government Need So Much Ammunition?

In my previous article, I also noted that the U.S. government appears to be very rapidly making preparations for something really big.

This week, it was revealed that the Social Security Administration plans to buy 174,000 hollow point bullets which will be delivered to 41 different locations all over America.

Now why in the world does the Social Security Administration need 174,000 bullets?

And why do they need hollow point bullets? Those bullets are designed to cause as much damage to internal organs as possible.

But of course this is only the latest in a series of very large purchases of ammunition by U.S. government agencies. The following is from a recent article by Paul Joseph Watson....

Back in March, Homeland Security purchased 450 million rounds of .40-caliber hollow point bullets that are designed to expand upon entry and cause maximum organ damage, prompting questions as to why the DHS needed such a large amount of powerful bullets merely for training purposes.

This was followed by another DHS solicitation asking for a further 750 million rounds of assorted bullets, including 357 mag rounds that are able to penetrate walls.

Now why in the world would the government need over a billion rounds of ammunition?

If it was the U.S. military I could understand this. You can burn through a whole lot of ammunition fighting wars.

But this makes no sense - unless they believe that big trouble is coming.

George Soros:

Perhaps even more disturbing is what he believes is coming after the financial collapse....

As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”

2 votes

#1.14 - Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:55 PM EST

**BERNIE MOSFET** · 12-20-2012, 10:49 PM

Jesus Christ that's a lot of stuff to read.

I'm not sure that I like the premise behind some of those probabilities.

**aggie97** · 12-21-2012, 10:54 AM

change your calculations in the first post to reflect LEGAL gun owners and I bet the numbers look better in our favor.

Announcement

A Mathematical Approach to What Causes Gun Murder in America

A Mathematical Approach to What Causes Gun Murder in America

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment