What's wrong with you, Americans?

[Oosik]

some interesting links on this guys page, uses each nations own data:
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2004/12/yes-virginia-violent-crime-really-is.html

Canadian Statistics: Violent crime in 2003 was 962.8 per 100,000 people.

UK Crime Statistics: Violent crime in 2002/2003 was 1904 per 100,000 people. (See table 3.05) This is not over 2 years. The British Crime Survey does not follow calendar year reporting. 2001/02 saw a rate of 1536 per 100,000 people.

US FBI Crime Stats: Violent Crime in 2003 was 457.0 per 100,000 people. (or there is a spreadsheet)

[Ste]

some interesting links on this guys page, uses each nations own data:
http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2004/12/yes-virginia-violent-crime-really-is.html

Canadian Statistics: Violent crime in 2003 was 962.8 per 100,000 people.

UK Crime Statistics: Violent crime in 2002/2003 was 1904 per 100,000 people. (See table 3.05) This is not over 2 years. The British Crime Survey does not follow calendar year reporting. 2001/02 saw a rate of 1536 per 100,000 people.

US FBI Crime Stats: Violent Crime in 2003 was 457.0 per 100,000 people. (or there is a spreadsheet)

Was it Benjamin Disraeli who said 'Statistics, statistics, and damned lies'

And I agree with Dan, lets kick rascism off the board, except where it concerns the Welsh of course. Bleeding coal miners in close-harmony choirs clutching leeks.....

Ste (half Welsh, bottom half)

[corp]

If only the closing of eyes would make the truth go away

[TigerPaws]

[size="4"][color="blue"] While I would very much enjoy the discussion, I beleve there are some subjects best left alone and this is one of them, how about we all just drop it and move on?[/color]
[/size]

[BC]

Tiger,

Agree.

Yes interesting discourse but really not related to this board.

Was fun tho' :cool:

As far as I am concerned this thread has run it's course.

[Oosik]

[user=333]Ste[/user] wrote:

And I agree with Dan, lets kick rascism off the board, except where it concerns the Welsh of course. Bleeding coal miners in close-harmony choirs clutching leeks.....

Ste (half Welsh, bottom half)[/quote]

[Admin]

Oosik,

Fair Warning. Knock it off. My patience has ended.

- Dan

[Ste]

Tiger,

Agree.

Yes interesting discourse but really not related to this board.

Was fun tho' :cool:

As far as I am concerned this thread has run it's course.

I agree - there will never be concord on this one. Just to show I can see the other side we have a famous incident here in UK where a a guy's house was being broken into while he was asleep.

He woke up, turned his shotgun (he was a farmer - they are allowed shotguns for pests etc) on one of the burgalars and blew him away - dead.

Result? Farmer got a jail sentence......

And ISTR the other non-shot burgular attempted to sue the farmer for damages due to the mental turmoil he recieved after seeing his thieving mate shot....

So - to end this thread and start a new one - could any of u gun carrying guys actually kill someone. For me, gun or not, I don't think I could do it - or if I had to, live with myself afterwards....

Ste

[solomon]

Let me know how things work out when you receive a national security letter. Actually I wont know because you wont be able to tell me.

Wow I am really fearing the mail man now

Why don't guess at the answer to the question I posed?

<<Actualy there are close to 400 million people in american, what percentage of those have suffered any harm by the homeland security laws?[/quote]There are no hard and fast numbers but the best conclusions are that numbers run into the millions. One of the biggest issues is that most of the people do not know about it. [/quote]


Solomon, how is it possible millions of people are getting national security letters and do not know it?
Why would you guess Millions?
How many people do you PERSONALLY know that are in this group?
Does anyone else reading this forum PERSONALLY know of any average joe-shmow citizen, arrested or injured by the government for no real reason, under homeland security?

I think these people crying Government intrusion, have no real idea what
oppression by the government really mean.
Where are the countless victims?
The only thing I ever hear about are a few isolated cases.[/quote]Corp - I answered the question that you asked. The question had nothing to do with national security letters. To reiterate part of my answer, most people do not know they are victims. Related to this, have you ever read the Patriot Act? If you dont think that the Act affects millions of people feel free to call me anytime.

[Oosik]

Something I noticed, and had to explain to my fiance. Other than in big cities (high crime, incompetent police, too much compassion for criminals), most houses in the US do not have super-solid door, I have never lived in a house or apartment where one could not kick the door in if you really wanted to. I explained that this is because we feel very safe in our houses, in large part due to our laws favoring the property owner or renter, and the American willingness and ability to have and use a firearm for self defense.

Does anyone here have big steel doors with massive locks ala the FSU?

Doesn't that show a true picture of how much crime there is, or how much criminals control things in a country or city?

[ConnerVT]

Haven't spent much time in the big cities (or in the 'hoods of LA), have you?  Where people not only have a strong, well locked door, but also bars across all their windows.  Some even bulletproof their bedrooms, as not to be shot dead in their sleep by a random drive by.

Security is not a win-all as a deterrent to crime.  Having a reason to live, and not be put in jail (or worse) is what prevents crimes in all but the worst areas of the US.  Is someone willing to break in and steal a $50 DVD player from a home, and chance losing his own home, car, and freedom?  Probably not, unless they have nothing to lose, and are possibly strung out looking for more drug money.

[Photo Guy]

[size="3"][color="darkred"]How can someone be the 'victim' of national security enforcements without even knowing about it? It's an absurd concept. In my life- no friend of a friend of a friend has been hauled away in the name of national security. Don't get me wrong- I am sensitive to any Orwellian infringements, but in my day to day life, I do not see or hear about ANY eliminations of personal liberties. If Larisa phones me from Ukraine and we talk about her taking driving lessons in the US, who cares if some idiot in Washington is listening in? The breach of privacy is trivial in the context of detecting a discussion between two terrorists, and the context of protecting the lives of our citizens. Just because one person was unfairly sent to prison does not mean we should not have any laws. That argument does not work. Forget about trying to create a utopia. -doug[/color][/size][/b]

[Photo Guy]

ConnerVT wrote:
Having a reason to live, and not be put in jail (or worse) is what prevents crimes in all but the worst areas of the US.

[size="3"][color="darkred"]I saw a TV show recently where criminals told us that they feared a potential victim might have a gun. That was the biggest deterent for them. -doug[/color][/size][/b]

[Admin]

[user=134]Photo Guy[/user] wrote:

[size="3"][color="darkred"]How can someone be the 'victim' of national security enforcements without even knowing about it? It's an absurd concept. In my life- no friend of a friend of a friend has been hauled away in the name of national security. Don't get me wrong- I am sensitive to any Orwellian infringements, but in my day to day life, I do not see or hear about ANY eliminations of personal liberties. If Larisa phones me from Ukraine and we talk about her taking driving lessons in the US, who cares if some idiot in Washington is listening in? The breach of privacy is trivial in the context of detecting a discussion between two terrorists, and the context of protecting the lives of our citizens. Just because one person was unfairly sent to prison does not mean we should not have any laws. That argument does not work. Forget about trying to create a utopia. -doug[/color][/size][/b]

At one time, I would have 'bought into' this argument - but no longer.

Just because you are not personally-affected by abuses of power does NOT mean those abuses do not exist. In fact, the pernicious nature of this particular problem is that you will likely NEVER know about the abuses until it DOES affect you personally - and then, it is probably too late to mount any meaningful and effective response.

The time to respond to abuses, or the potential for abuse, is PRIOR to anything developing into a crisis. Your credibility will be greater, and your ability to mount an effective principled pursuit is vastly greater when you are not being targeted by the authorities.

The key, IMO, is to abide by PRINCIPLES and not reacting to events. Quite clearly, the principles enacted by the founders of this country are being trampled in the name of national security. THAT is shameful.

- Dan

[Oosik]

My guiding principle for these things is: Do I want President Hillary Clinton and her thugs (she has admitted to hiring goon squads) to have this power?

I think this is a key stupidity of the Bush administration, they are enacting laws without thinking how a dirtbag president in the future would abuse the power. Think of Billary's use of the IRS to audit personal and political enemies. Now give them a grey-area wiretapping/no-tell warrants/sneaky search and seizure, and we have a very scary place. Imagine "hate crime" legislation being passed, then having Hillary's FBI snooping on your PC or your phone calls to see if you said anything that may be offensive to one of the pampered minority classes.

BUT, if the overseas-call wiretaps were done with strict limits on what data could be culled or used, it would make sense, just as tapping calls to Germany made sense in 1943. But witness Janet Reno's practice of keeping gun transaction data in clear violation of the law. All it takes is one scumbag appointee, and a media that supports them, and you have a civil liberties erosion.

[Photo Guy]

If and when there's a significant trampling of personal liberties, I don't think it will be as subtle as you say. I think it will be obvious to society at large. If the time comes when a friend or relative loses his or her freedom, I do not think it will be too late to do something about it. Our government is in a constant state of flux. It is far from being a fascist state. When and if the governemtn crosses the line, there will be a huge outcry and politicians will react to their constituents. For example, crossing the line might be the government's decision to technically impede or eliminate all phone calls between the US and Syria. If such a thing happened it would be spread across the front pages of all our newspapers and our senators would have to deal with it. I don't understand how a subtle infringement can be considered a major infringement of liberty. Please explain that for me. Isn't there a difference between passive monitoring and active infringements? Can't we draw that line?

[Photo Guy]

[size="3"]Oosik, I agree. It is very scary when a government talks about enacting laws that treat 'offensiveness' as being on the same plane as violence or terrorism. That is a real example of a dangerous tendency of certain politicians to want to go to far into the realm of controlling citizens. It is not passive, but extremely active.
[/size]

[Admin]

Guys - this topic is now going too far afield of the board 'theme' hence, I am going to close it. I recognize that I, too, contributed to the thread-drift. Nonetheless, it is now closed.

- Dan