Guns and Crime
(latest posts at the bottom)
Posted 10/5/05
3/05-present FreeRepublic.com
I ran across this a few days ago and it is quite an excellent collection of stories supporting the second amendment, the right to bear arms. I've always had the intention of writing a lengthy piece comparing gun laws with crime rates etc.. in different countries, because the Left's fascination with gun control is reflective of Liberalism in general. A homeless person is homeless: give him a home, poor people are poor, give them money, people are being killed in a war, stop the war, someone is killed by a gun, take away guns, kitchen knives are causing injuries, ban kitchen knives (you think I'm joking). The immediate knee jerk reaction of Liberalism is to attack the immediate symptoms of a problem, irregardless of the actual cause of the problem. As demonstrated, such a mindless approach tends to make the problems worse, not better. It is always ironic to me how Liberals, especially in academia, consciously or unconsciously portray themselves as 'intellectuals' and the 'common man' as unintelligent, when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this is why Libertarianism (and economic Conservatism) is so positive and forward looking. We BELIEVE in the 'common man', the 'average American', the 'working Joe', and we believe he can discover the simple political principles that this country was founded on and, indeed, she has, despite the efforts of the elitists 'experts' and media of this country. Furthermore, it is the 'common man', regardless of class, sex, race, or background, that form the entire Libertarian/Conservative movement and are responsible for keeping the United States 'relatively' free from Tyranny. You see, even the richest Libertarian billionaire will stand in lockstep with a minimum wage earner and respect his views, whereby a Liberal billionaire, perhaps well intentioned, will instead be indirectly condescending towards those of a different 'class' as, in the name of equality, he assumes a destroying parental role in their lives.
Taking away guns, as many liberals tried (and still try) to do before it became politically unpopular, actually increases crime and violence in society (I realize I haven't given the statistics yet to back this up). Our Founding Fathers thought gun control was so important they created an Amendment to the Constitution (albeit one that was unnecessary and potentially harmful). This amendment is now violated in states, counties and cities across the country who refuse to let their citizens bear arms.
Two countries with some of the lowest crime rates in the world, Israel and Switzerland, buy semiautomatic rifles for each of their male citizens (and in Israel's case I believe many of the females too) after they join the army (which is compulsorily). I'm no suggesting we follow in their mold (gun socialism?), but merely pointing out the fact that the career path of 'burglar' in these countries is generally short lived.
But, why did our Founding Fathers consider gun control so important? The answer given in our government (public) schools, if it is even addressed, is defense of the country from foreigners, ie the War of Independence. Therefore, today, since we have adequate protection from our military, guns are not necessary. Of course, this line of thinking is incorrect. More important than protecting citizens from external governments, is ensuring our protection from our own. This was utmost in the minds of our founding fathers, and for good reason:
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
- Noah Webster
Since the governments of Europe were Tyrannical at the time of the founding of the United States, they kept their citizens unarmed, as all dictatorships and tyrannies always have. On 7/3/05 I posted:
Zimbabwe Tyranny Confiscates Guns
6/30/05 Volokh Conspiracy Added to 'Charitable Corruption', an example of how Tyrannical governments always aim to keep the people unarmed (the easier to rob and kill them). Also contains this gem:
Perhaps the most effective foreign aid which should be sent to the people of Zimbabwe would be millions of rifles, so that the people would no longer be defenseless against the depradations of one of the most evil governments in all of African history.
History is replete with examples of gun confiscations/restrictions by Tyrants, the most notorious being the confiscation of the guns of Jews using gun registration lists compiled in the liberal Weimar Republic:
 |
Jews Forbidden to Possess Weapons
|
If one recognizes that power is corrupting and that government is, at best, a necessary evil, a tolerated mafia, which must be carefully watched for signs of deceit and trickery, then it follows that armed citizens are the best safeguard against oppression.
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
- Thomas Jefferson
The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
- Tench Coxe
The media, not surprisingly, editorializes in their reporting on militias and armed citizen groups, insinuating they are 'destabilizing', 'radical', 'dangerous' elements. With small exception, nothing could be further from the truth.
Guns also protect people from each other. An important trend to recognize is that as weapon technology advanced, justice and morality have generally advanced. In the beginning, a man with bigger muscles could steal the property of any other man with smaller muscles and any given man could rape any women. With the invention of knives and swords, genetic build was no longer the predominate factor in a conflict. While this gave the weak and defenseless more of a chance against bullies, it also allowed for a skilled swordsmen, through training, to attain great power over much of the populace. With guns, this changed. Bill Whittle writes (good piece opposing gun control):
In our cowboy past we used to say that "God created Man, but Sam Colt made them equal." This is simple enough to understand. It means that a villager, let's say a schoolteacher, can defeat a human predator who may have spent his entire life practicing the art of war. Firearms are what tipped the balance toward civilization by eliminating a lifetime spent studying swordplay or spear play or pointed-stick play. The bad guys have always used weapons and they always will. The simple truth about guns is that they are damn effective and even easier to operate. They level the playing field to the point where a woman has a chance against a gang of thugs or a police officer can control a brawl.
So, clearly, guns have been a blessing on society. But what about individual families? With some variation, it is doubtlessly true that if your family has a gun in the home, you are more likely to suffer an accidental shooting death than save a life from an intruder. This difference between society and individual family is where ideologues of both sides neglect reality.
Hypothetically, if two accidental home deaths occur for every death, kidnapping, or rape prevented by gun ownership, then a family is, statistically, endangering itself by having a gun in a home. But the most violent criminals, those most likely to be shot by property owners, are most likely repeat offenders. Social behavior of criminals can be graphed in exponential form. For example, hardly anyone murders, a few murder one person, but those that murder more than one person are responsible for the vast majority of murders. This pattern holds true with burglars, rapists, child molesters and other sociological phenomena such as sexual disease transmission. Thus, if a family with a gun kills one of the above criminals they are protecting not just themselves, but many other families and future victims of the criminal.
Liberals see only the accidental statistics and disavow the societal protective reality, Conservatives and organizations like the NRA emphasize the immediate protective reality (some societal too), but disavow the accidental statistics. In a strange sort of way, owning a gun and sacrificing (statistically) one's family's safety for the 'public good' is sort of a socialist concept! I doubt most gun owners view themselves this way. In my opinion, the NRA and other gun owning organizations propagate a strange mix of truth found no where else, and irresponsible politically driven rhetoric, especially around election time, which often sacrifice the means for the ends. Still, I would trust an NRA newsletter over anything written in the media (more on this later).
But, so far I've neglected to address the underlying forces behind crime. Although an armed society helps prevents crime, what causes crime? I'm sure you've heard the generic statement: Guns don't kill, people do. True, but why do people kill? In 'Sweat Shops and Welfare' I state:
Our inner cities (Indian reservations, and Applachia) didn't experience this prosperity because private sector wages couldn't match what the government was paying people not to work [via welfare]. On top of this the government never considered itself an employer of these millions people, so it paid no local taxes. But the worst part was that the government's ever expanding public housing units concentrated welfare recipients and, since the government never considered itself a homeowner, it paid little or no property tax on it's these units, further devastating local treasuries and contributing to the crumbling local (monopolistic) schools and infrastructure. High minimum wages worked to price the lowest income earners out of the labor market, thus benefiting Unions by eliminating their low wage competition. Private companies obviously avoided these areas like the plague, but some more sinister industries saw clear advantages in these areas. They saw an idle, restless, uneducated populace which, in order not to loose their cash, food, housing and medical benefits, could only engage in economic activity that was unreported to the government. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, gangs and other criminal enterprises were given the equivalent of a tax break to set up shop in these areas. Natural human ambition and the entrepreneurial spirit was not be stopped - even by the Federal government. It was merely molded into a more insidious force.
With Welfare Reform, much of this began to change. The demand for work brought companies back to the inner cities. There were no longer any more 'tax breaks' and other incentives for shady criminal activity. While the jobs the private companies offered may initially be low paying, a gradual transformation will occur as people strive for better lives and more local money and taxes flow into the striken areas. Problems still exist and the reforms need to be continued. Conservatives often propose setting up 'economic zones' with tax breaks for companies in poorer areas. This will only work if people have a need to work - more government social programs must be reduced and/or eliminated.
So, these Welfare stricken areas were ripe for prostitution, gambling, and drugs. But would these 'industries' target Welfare stricken areas if they were legal? Probably not, the reason they target these areas are pricelessly because they are illegal. By criminalizing consenting adults in their activities and violating their right to control of their property (like their money and their physical bodies), government has done nothing less than unleash a wave of terror on the poorest populations in the United States, already suffering under government imposed welfare tyranny. (Not to mention endangering our national security.)
Arrested After Reporting Stolen Marijuana
7/27/05 Reuters A Texas man was arrested on Monday after calling police to complain about the theft of his marijuana, authorities said. Stephen Knight, 17, said three men had broken into his apartment, hogtied him with Christmas lights and stole some marijuana, along with a plasma screen television, police said. Police are looking for the suspects. In the meantime, they arrested Knight after finding several marijuana plants growing under heat lamps in the apartment, four grams of harvested marijuana and a tablet of ecstasy, Officer Chad Ripley said. Knight said the men barged into his home early on Monday morning demanding, "Where's the weed?," according to San Antonio police.
Most people might just laugh this off as stupidity, but this misses a key point. Injustice was done to this man and since the main point of government is to ensure property protection, he sought out government. He will not do so again. Instead, if he continues growing/dealing he might arm himself or join an armed criminal gang. By making gambling, prostitution, and drugs illegal, government has 'legalized' the theft of them by others. Armed conflict is often the result. Another story: pot club robbed.
In any event, crime is a complex multifaceted phenomena, but it seems clear that large reductions in criminal activity will occur following accelerated repeal of welfare policies, decriminalizing unconstitutional freedom limiting laws, or, better yet, by doing both simultaneously.
This idea of relying on oneself, not government, for protection is also useful when government collapses, for example during national disasters (like hurricane Katrina).
Armed Militia Protect Their New Orleans Neighborhood
9/10/05 The Austin American Statesman But the band of neighbors who survived Hurricane Katrina and then fought off looters has not disarmed. The several dozen people who did not evacuate from Algiers Point said that for days after the storm, they did not see any police officers or soldiers but did see gangs of intruders. So they set up what might be the ultimate neighborhood watch. Another afternoon, a gunfight broke out on the streets as armed neighbors and armed intruders exchanged fire.
Who would finally evict these citizens from their homes? Government.
"They say they're going to drag us kicking and screaming from our houses. For what? To take us to concentration camps where we'll be raped and killed," Ramona Parker said. "This is supposed to be America. We're honest citizens. We're not troublemakers. We pay our taxes." "It would be cruel for the city to make us evacuate after what we've been through," Pervel said.
Even worse, in one of the worst blunders of the disaster, but one most illustrative of the dangerous of liberalism, the government of New Orleans began confiscating firearms, including those legally registered, from the citizens of New Orleans, right when they needed them most. This was only stopped after the NRA sued and a Federal judge ruled such actions unconstitutional. This is why gun registration efforts, licensing, and regulation must be opposed. In the end, government cannot be counted on to protect your family. In fact, more often than not government will be the cause, not the solution, of the distress you or your family will be experiencing.
In conclusion, I want to return to address the reasons why I would trust the NRA, despite it's flaws, over the media and our government officials. Reading through some of the stories listed in the original link, can be quite shocking. The restrictions and regulations on gun ownership, the statements of police chiefs urging citizens to not resist thieves, the media wondering whether people defending their homes or lives against armed criminals will be charged? Some examples:
Police allege that Dominguez was in the process of burglarizing a home in the 6000 block of 26th Street North in the Leeway-Overly community about 5:30 a.m. Sunday when he was confronted by the homeowner. When confronted, police said Dominguez ran from the family room into the room of the man’s teenage daughter. A struggle ensued, and the homeowner shot the intruder in the face. While there is an ordinance that makes it illegal to discharge a firearm in Arlington County, Arlington County Police Det. Rick Rodriguez said that no charges have been filed against the homeowner, who was interviewed by detectives following the incident. “It will be up to the investigator to determine if they will be,” Rodriguez said of charges. “You have to look at the circumstances in this case.”
Shortly after 4 p.m., three men went into the store and tried to rob Winter. When he wouldn't comply, one of the men shot him once in the hip, said York County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Bill Graff. A part-time store clerk, Steven Gray, fired several shots from a .45-caliber handgun, hitting one of the men, police said. The robbers ran out of the store. Gray won't be charged, Graff said.
"He tried to shoot me first but I pulled my gun and shot him," said Butts, adding that he fired three times at the suspect. "You have to work if you need money, just like me. I work 16 and 17 hours every day seven days."
"I don't encourage anyone to confront a would-be robber," said police Sgt. Wayne Woods. "The safest thing normally is to comply with their wishes because we don't want anyone hurt."
In another incident described as a home invasion Thursday, a Fremont man was shot to death at 80 Pine St. in Rochester. The Attorney General’s Office has not commented on reports that the man was shot after he broke into the home. An autopsy revealed that Bryan Gaedtke, 21, died from a single gunshot to the chest. The residence is the home of Geoff and Jocelynn Hamann and their two children. The death was ruled a homicide, but Assistant Attorney General Peter Odom said that does not necessarily mean criminal charges will be brought; rather, the term means one human killed another human.
A Staunton man hospitalized with a bullet in his back early Friday had been shot when his street gang attacked an armed victim, authorities have tentatively ruled. As doctors listed Coakley in critical condition hours later, investigators had 26-year-old Jeremy Kyle Bryant, of Staunton, in custody as the shooter. They charged him with carrying a concealed weapon because he lacked a permit, and released him.
Here are three positive stories on people proactively taking on criminals. What would the crime rate be like if all citizens acted like this: Story 1, Story 2, Story 3. By how much could we cut the police force?
Last, but not least:
Florida tourists warned that locals could shoot them
9/30/05 The Scotsman This story illustrates the depth to which those on the left will sink. This campaign has gained wide and distorted media coverage. The debate is over new gun laws in Florida. Previously, gun owners could only use their weapons if they first attempted to withdraw and avoid a confrontation, and were permitted to shoot threatening individuals only inside their home or property. Why should you be forced to 'withdraw' from a criminal? Why shouldn't you confront a criminal attempting to rob or harm you outside of your property? Now they can use "deadly force" if they "reasonably believe" that firing their gun is necessary to prevent a crime or serious injury. The law also effectively prevents civil legal action by victims of such shootings. The state's governor, Jeb Bush - whose brother is the US president - described it as a "good, commonsense, anti-crime issue".
Posted 10/13/05
Two stories added to 'Guns and Crime'
NRA Pushes 'Guns at Work' Bill
10/8/05 Florida Times Union The dust-up is over the "guns-at-work" bill, which the National Rifle Association began pushing last month in Tallahassee to force all Florida businesses to allow firearms in the vehicles of any employee or visitor. Companies could keep policies banning guns from their buildings themselves but could no longer apply those policies to their parking lots. This is an example of the NRA going too far. Who owns the parking lot property? The actual owners, or the NRA? Obviously, the owners, thus they make the rules.
Anti Gun Campaigner Attacks Heavy Handed Police
6/17/05 The Scotsman An anti-gun campaigner today criticised police as “heavy handed” after she was arrested for having a pump-action sawn-off shotgun in her home. Grandmother Sheila Eccleston said she was locked in a police cell for 12 hours after she attempted to hand in the weapon. The 51-year-old has been a high-profile anti-gun campaigner since her son Dean was shot and killed four years ago. She has met Prime Minister Tony Blair and travelled to Boston in 2003 as part of a BBC documentary on tackling gun violence. The mother of three said she called police at around 1.00am on Saturday to report interrupting an attempted burglary at a neighbour’s home. So the police arrest her, not the criminal... I wonder if she would have used her gun if her home had been broken into? She claims she had it for 6 months.
She said: “If people see a person like me being arrested despite all the work I do to get guns off the street, they are even less likely to hand them in.
Posted 10/13/05
The break in postings was a result of switching apartments and loosing Internet for a bit. I've added a disclaimer to the 'Guns and Crime' post below because it has been, rightly, pointed out that I didn't give any statistics that showed that more gun control = more crime. I'll need to organize and go through some news stories and do some work on this to put this info into good format. But I can say that the District of Colombia, which has the highest murder rate per capita, also has the strictest gun control laws in the nation (Defense Secretary Rumsfeld once accurately pointed out that the murder rate of D.C. was greater than that of Baghdad). This is sort of like how the District of Colombia has the most spending per pupil, but lowest test scores. :) The District is a fascinating laboratory of liberalism. Interestingly, Detroit, the so-called most 'liberal city' in the US has the second highest murder rate (and I'm guessing strict gun control laws too).
Posted 8/1/05
Gun Bill Only Sold Out Lawyers
8/1/05 Daily Telegram Congress recently passed a bill preventing Gun Manufacturers from being held liable for what people do with guns.
Consider the logic. Your husband is run down by a drunk driver so you file a lawsuit against ... Toyota? Your son is attacked by someone using a baseball bat so you sue ... Louisville Slugger? Your daughter is propositioned on the Internet so you hire a lawyer to take down ... Dell?
The Questions that needs to be asked, that aren't being asked are:
Why were Gun Manufactures allowed to be sued in the first place? How long did this go on? What defect in the law exists that allows people who didn't commit a crime to be sued? What other industries are under assault by these sorts of legal frauds? Why did these 31 Democratic Senators vote against the bill?
Posted 11/10/05
Rage of French Youth is a fight for recognition / Spreading Rampage in Country's Slums Is Rooted in Alienation and Abiding Government Neglect
11/8/05 Washington Post Is anyone else sick of reading articles like this one? Government neglect? Alienation? If it is the fault of government it is probably for opposite reasons. My guess is that these Muslim slums are the recipients of large amounts of government aid (welfare). Unemployment is estimated to be as high as 40-50% among young Muslim poor in these French slums. High minimum wages doubtlessly price them out of the job market. A job market where it is exceedingly difficult to fire people (due to overbearing and onerous labor laws), thus employers are reluctant to hire:
(from a previous 5/10/05 post [dead link]) In France, the company must show that layoffs have a financial basis, said Lowell Turner, a professor of international and comparative labor at Cornell University.
Poor public schools and French socialism keep these folks uneducated and unmotivated. In short, conditions and causes are probably similar to the ones I have outlined throughout this site that effect our own inner city slums, Appalachia, and Indian Reservations. Now, do I have proof of this? Not at all. I am just speculating, but I would be very surprised if it were not true.
Several of the older youths fingered pockets bulging with plastic packets of hashish for sale or trade. As they read local newspaper accounts of their previous night's exploits, they began discussing Saturday night's plans with more of an air of boredom than a commitment to a cause.
"We don't have the American dream here," said Rezzoug, as he surveyed the clusters of young men.
How can this be? The media has been telling us that Muslims hate the US and that President Bush's foreign policies have just inflamed this hatred more. After all, France actively opposed and lobbied against the war in Iraq. Yet their own population speaks of the 'American dream'?
Muslims more integrated in US than France
11/8/05 AFP Arab and Muslim immigrants in the US generally identify themselves as Americans and integrate with relative ease into a society that prides itself on social mobility and has more tolerance for cultural and religious differences, Haddad said.
Arab Americans and Muslims are better educated and have a higher income than the national average, said Edina Lekovic, communications director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
She cautioned against painting the riots as a religious issue rather than the result of economic and political disenfranchisement.
Well, this 'expert' is right that it is not a religious issue, it is an economic issue, but the solution is probably the opposite of whatever economic problems she thinks are occurring. Political disenfranchisement is not an issue because political disenfranchisement only exists with economic disenfranchisement (with rare exception).
The real parallel to the French riots is the African-American race riots of the 1960s and following the Rodney King beating in Los Angeles, said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute.
I agree with Zogby here, although I'm sure, again, that I have opposite views on the causes and solutions.
However, what is unique about the French experience is that government not only causes the problem, but then makes it doubly worse by refusing to allow its citizens to defend themselves or their property from the result of the failed government policies. In France it is illegal to own a gun.
French Police Arrest 250 as Arson Grows
11/5/05 Associated Press
In quiet Acheres, on the edge of the St. Germain forest west of Paris, arsonists burned a nursery school, where part of the roof caved in, and about a dozen cars in four attacks that the mayor said seemed "perfectly organized."
Children's photos clung to the blackened walls, and melted plastic toys littered the floor.
Residents gathered at the school gate demanded that the army be deployed or suggested that
citizens band together to protect their neighborhoods. Mayor Alain Outreman tried to cool
tempers.
"We are not going to start militias," he said. "You would have to be everywhere."
The police cannot be everywhere, but the people can! The government is not the people! This is precisely the point I had been trying to make in 'Guns and Crime'. When push comes to shove you cannot count on Government for protection. The best protection against criminals is that which you construct for yourself. Does anyone think these punk kids would keep burning cars if they were getting shotgun blasts fired over their heads? Protection of property is the key to liberty. When government fails in the only duty for which is exists then it must be abolished or the law must be taken into the hands of righteous citizens.
Posted 2/10/06
87-year old women fatally shoots man in home
2/7/06 St. Louis Post Dispatch
An 87-year-old East St. Louis woman fatally shot a man early this morning as he was trying to break into her house.
He had pulled the telephone wires from the side of the house, then removed security bars from a
porch window.
As the man was breaking through a storm door that leads into the house itself,
the woman fired several shots through her front door, striking Tillman once in the chest.
Police said the shots were fired from a pistol, most likely a gun that her
daughter had given her after a man broke into the elderly woman’s house in December, battered her
and stole some items.
The man may have been dead for as long as four hours before police arrived. Police said that the woman was not sure that she had hit Tillman when she fired the shots about 2 a.m. However, she was too afraid to go outside to check and could not call for help because the telephone lines were dead.
This women is lucky she didn't leave in San Francisco, the District of Colombia, or any other gun grabbing bastions of liberalism. There, her actions would have been a criminal offense.
In the end, government cannot be counted on to protect you and your
family. Society must protect itself, through the diligent actions of its citizens. This criminal,
whom we can assume had a rap sheet miles long, was finally stopped, not by the police, not by the
government, but by an individual empowered by the second amendment.
(added to Guns and
Crime)
Posted7/14/06
12 Year Old Points Gun at Burglars; Group Takes Off (SC)
11/10/06 Fox News Try and picture it. A 12 year old walks into the living room, sees his mother frantically protecting the baby, and several strangers attacking his father. The 12 year old rushes out of the living room-- but comes back pointing a gun at the five suspects. As of Monday night-- all but one are in jail.
This one goes well with the previously posted story about the 87 year old grandmother and will be added to 'Guns and Crime'. Now we have the young and the old examples to go along with the 'great equalizer' theme. :) Speaking of crime, anyone see the news stories about how a crime wave is sweeping the District of Colombia, which, if it isn't obvious, has a ban on all guns. Or maybe its not so obvious, considering the frequency of armed robberies and gun battles... I guess its obviousness depends on the nature of the perceiver. :)
On the other hand, crime is at a 35 year low Florida, a state which actually lets you defend yourself against intruders with firearms, and is one of the fastest growing states in the country, due to liberating economic policies.
Gov Jeb Bush says:
''This report shows that staying tough on crime works,'' Bush said. ``Law abiding citizens that have guns for protection actually probably are part of the reason we have a lower crime rate.''
Posted 3/29/06
3/29/06 John Stossel
Stossel takes a break from his great educational pieces in order to turn in a new direction.
I almost posted this under 'required reading', but there are a few things left out that would make his good arguments even more complete.
The first is that the act of making something illegal generally makes it more, not less available to kids. In high school and early college, both in theory and anecdotally, nearly everyone I've talked to agrees that pot was more accessible than alcohol. It is more accessible precisely because it is illegal. As long as taxes are low on alcohol, there is no real incentive to risk your much larger adult business marketing to underage kids. If taxes are raised to a certain level, then incentives exist to sell alcohol on the black market, and then underage kids will have greater access. The reason I bring 'taxes' up is because this trend has been starting to occur recently with smuggling cigarettes. Of course, not that any of this should be taken as an endorsement of age limits on alcohol procurement, it is pretty repulsive that 17-18 year olds can die in defense of their country, but then be arrested at a bar, but I am merely stating that if one starts with the goal of limiting access of drugs/alcohol to minors, which those who defend the War on Drugs claim to do, then, from my perspective, it still does not make sense to advance logically in the direction of making drugs/alcohol illegal.
The second idea left out of the Stossel piece is stated in 'Guns and Crime', oh actually its originally from 'Sweat Shops and Welfare':
Our inner cities (Indian reservations, and Applachia) didn't experience this prosperity because private sector wages couldn't match what the government was paying people not to work [via welfare]. On top of this the government never considered itself an employer of these millions people, so it paid no local taxes. But the worst part was that the government's ever expanding public housing units concentrated welfare recipients and, since the government never considered itself a homeowner, it paid little or no property tax on it's these units, further devastating local treasuries and contributing to the crumbling local (monopolistic) schools and infrastructure. High minimum wages worked to price the lowest income earners out of the labor market, thus benefiting Unions by eliminating their low wage competition. Private companies obviously avoided these areas like the plague, but some more sinister industries saw clear advantages in these areas. They saw an idle, restless, uneducated populace which, in order not to loose their cash, food, housing and medical benefits, could only engage in economic activity that was unreported to the government. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, gangs and other criminal enterprises were given the equivalent of a tax break to set up shop in these areas. Natural human ambition and the entrepreneurial spirit was not be stopped - even by the Federal government. It was merely molded into a more insidious force.
Basically, the casualties from the War On Drugs disproportionately effect the poorest, most destitute in society, especially those already suffering under the heavy foot of government. But then again, why should this be surprising? When government expands these are almost always the folks hurt first and most, which makes it all the more peculiar that government expansion is routinely undertaken in the name of helping them.
(Added to 'Guns and Crime')
Posted 4/19/06
Weapons Rap for Self Defense Pair
4/16/06 New York Post
Two brothers who were shot defending their Brooklyn shop from a pair of stick-up men were busted for returning fire with an illegal handgun, police sources said. The gunfight erupted at 7:40 p.m. Friday when the two bandits, entered Vinnie's Style, a clothing boutique on Flatbush Avenue.
One of the pair allegedly fired a .45-caliber pistol when the brothers, Paul and Jacob Parris, refused to get down.
Both were charged with weapons possession when cops learned the Parris' used an unlicensed 9mm pistol in the shootout, sources said.
(Added to 'Guns and Crime'.)
Posted 5/10/06
Store owner arrested for shooting at gas theft suspects
4/29/06 George Town Times
The owner of an Andrews-area convenience store, accused of taking the law into his own hands after he witnessed an alleged gas drive off Wednesday, is charged with two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill. Dennis Cooper, 52, the owner of Cooper’s Six Mile Crossing Convenience Store allegedly chased and then fired shots at a vehicle after the driver reportedly drove off without paying for $28 worth of gas.
Deputy Kevin Holt was the first officer on the scene. When he arrived he saw Cooper holding the two men on the ground at gunpoint.
The owner of this gas station is charged for the crime of protecting his own property. Government does not have the same incentives to protect his property as he does. While I cannot condone all his actions, I can at least respect this idea of a 'citizen' arrest.
Disabled Red Bank Man Gets Off 4 Shots At Home Invader
4/27/06 The Chatanoogan
A disabled Red Bank man foiled a home invasion early Thursday morning by getting off four shots at a man busting in his bedroom window. Lt. Kyle said Daniel "Spike" McCabe, 28, was found to have a gunshot wound later in the day in Soddy-Daisy when he was examined for a drug overdose.
I always like stories where the weakest (physically) members of society are protected by their right to bear arms.
Local resident shoots bank robber in leg
4/10/06 Paris News
Piper said he first knew of the manhunt near his house when his girlfriend called him at work about 8 p.m. to tell him a bank robber was loose in the area and police had instructed her to keep the kids in the house and the doors locked.
Upon arriving home, Piper said he said “hi” to the four kids, got his shotgun out of the closet and proceeded to lock vehicles and secure outside buildings.
“I told him, ‘you are not one of my neighbors, you are the bank robber,’” Piper said. “I told my girlfriend to call 911 and I told him to lay face down on the ground.”
Instead, the man threw his arms back and “started coming at me busted out like he was going to hit me,” Piper said.
Piper pulled the trigger, sending a 20-gauge shotgun shell through both of Hammonds’ legs, ending a five-hour manhunt involving several law enforcement agencies, a Texas Department of Public Safety helicopter and tracking dogs from the Choice Moore State Jail in Bonham.
Piper says he is anxious about possible charges being brought against him, but said he believes he was justified in what he did.
Posted 11/5/06 (By Travis)
Police:
Intruder was in prison several times
10/11/06 Corpus Christi Caller-Times
A 57-year-old man who was shot and killed by his 14-year-old hostage Monday at a home on Ocean Drive had been released from jail Friday and had committed several other burglaries, including a similar home invasion, according to police and court records.
Posted 1/4/07 (By Travis)
The Armed Citizen Year In Review: Final Tallies
12/31/06 Freerepublic.com
An interesting recap of 263 news stories from the year 2006, searchable by state, where citizens successfully defended their life, liberty, and property with firearms. Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, most shootings probably don't make the newspapers, and of those making the newspapers many are probably not caught by the diligent 'freepers' (posters on freerepublic.com), and labeled with the correct key words. Even so, it is still interesting as a reference and will be added to 'Guns and Crime'.
Posted 4/20/07 (By Travis)
4/20/07 The Enquire
She was Miss America 1944 and later a candidate for Cincinnati City Council and worked to save Over-the-Rhine's historic buildings. She performed on Broadway and in movies.
Now, though, she's in the news for another reason.
For some time, thieves had been breaking into the building to steal the machines to sell for scrap. She hadn't been able to catch anyone in the act until last week.
She drove over to the building and blocked the truck sitting there.
When she asked a man what he was doing, he replied "scrapping," and said he would leave.
"I said, 'Oh, no you won't,' and I shot their tires so they couldn't leave," Ramey said.
She had to balance on her walking stick as she pulled out a snub-nosed .38-caliber handgun.
Eventually, three people were arrested - one at the scene and two others walking on a nearby road.
"I didn't even think twice. I just went and did it. If they'd even dared come close to me, they'd be 6 feet under by now."
"They've been stealing from me for years. Those good-for-nothing slobs," she said.
"I'm trying to live a quiet, peaceful life and stay out of trouble, and all it is, is one thing after another."
Posted 5/13/07 (By Travis)
Cannabis cash 'funds Islamist terrorism'
Cannabis smokers are unwittingly funding Islamist extremists linked to terror attacks in Spain, Morocco and Algeria, according to a joint investigation by the Spanish and French secret services. The finding will be seized on both by campaigners for a harsher clampdown on cannabis and by those who argue that legalisation is the only way to end a petty dealing trend that is dragging growing numbers of teenagers into crime. The investigation by the Centro Nacional de Inteligencia and the Renseignements Generaux was launched after Spanish police found that the Islamists behind the March 2004 bombings in Madrid bought their explosives from former miners in return for blocks of hashish.
The same has occurred in Afghanistan:
"...billions of dollars from the sale of opium and its derivative heroin are bankrolling criminal and terrorist organizations."
Government, whose core reason for existence include protecting the property (lives) and liberty of its citizens fails on both counts with the 'war on drugs'.
Posted 8/8/07 (By Travis)
Terrorists Teaming up with Drug Cartels
8/8/07 Washington Times
Islamic extremists embedded in the United States — posing as Hispanic nationals — are partnering with violent Mexican drug gangs to finance terror networks in the Middle East, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration report.
WOD (War on Drugs) again effecting our national security alert.
Posted 8/21/07 (By Travis)
7/31/07 Reason.com
The standard, schoolbook history of alcohol prohibition in the United States goes like this:
Americans in 1920 embarked on a noble experiment to force everyone to give up drinking. Alas, despite its nobility, this experiment was too naive to work. It soon became clear that people weren't giving up drinking. Worse, it also became clear that Prohibition fueled mobsters who grew rich supplying illegal booze. So, recognizing the futility of Prohibition, Americans repealed it in 1934.
This popular belief is completely mistaken.
Despite pleas throughout the 1920s by journalist H.L. Mencken and a tiny handful of other sensible people to end Prohibition, Congress gave no hint that it would repeal this folly. Prohibition appeared to be here to stay — until income-tax revenues nose-dived in the early 1930s.
From 1930 to 1931, income-tax revenues fell by 15 percent.
In 1932 they fell another 37 percent; 1932 income-tax revenues were 46 percent lower than just two years earlier. And by 1933 they were fully 60 percent lower than in 1930.
With no end of the Depression in sight, Washington got anxious for a substitute source of revenue. That source was liquor sales.
An interesting opinion stating that government greed, not sympathy to liberty by politicians or changing opinion of the citizenry finally felled prohibition. Will the WOD (War on Drugs) meet a similar fate?
Posted 2/17/08 (By Travis)
Another
Massacre At A "Gun Free Zone" College Campus
kxmb
^ | 2/15/08
One gun. That’s all it would have taken. But that campus, like all the others, is a “gun free zone”.
To everyone except the killer.
Posted 6/20/08 ( by Travis)
‘I’m Very Sorry’: Man Involved In Shooting Shares Experience
6/8/08 Brietbart TV
Posted 6/27/08 ( by Travis)
*LIVE
THREAD* DC Gun Ban Struck Down 5-4 (Scalia for the win!)
SCOTUS
Blog ^ | 6-26-08 | shameless vanity
This historic ruling reaffirms what the second amendment clearly states. The so called 'coma debate' never held water and both the intention and meaning was always clear.
This sort of 'negative power', as power goes upwards from township, city, county, state, federal, whether judicial or legislative is in dire need of expansion. In other words, the next level up can tell the lower levels what they may not do (negative power), not what they must do (positive power). For example, knocking down this tyrannical law in the district of Colombia, is an example of negative power being utilized. National New Deal type legislation at the Federal level is 'positive power', mandating what states must do, regulations they must comply with, socialisms they must conform with, pyramid schemes they must partake in, and are inherently antithetical to liberty and good governance.
Interestingly, isn't it ironic that the highest crime rate in the nation is the district of Colombia. In fact, the District at one point had a higher murder rate than Baghdad, a fact mentioned by Secretary Rumsfeld. How can it be, that the city with the highest crime rate in the United States has amongst the strictest gun control laws? Likely for the same reason that the District of Colombia has the lowest test scores and highest funding per student out of all the 50 states.
Also interestingly, Obama appears to agree with the ruling as do many Democrats. Perhaps freedom is indeed on the march!
8/12/09
Seattle Bank Teller Loses Job After Thwarting Heist
8/4/09 foxnews
"They tell us that we're just supposed to comply, but my instincts kicked in and I did what's best to stop the guy," the 30-year-old Nicholson told The Seattle Times. "I thought if I let him go he would rob more banks and cause more problems."
The man ran, and Nicholson chased him for several blocks before knocking him
down with help from a passerby. Nicholson then held the suspect, Aaron J. Sloan,
29, until police arrived.
Nicholson's reward? Two days after the failed heist, he was fired.
"Our policies and procedures are in the best interests of public safety and are
consistent with industry standards," Foster said in a statement to FOXNews.com
on Monday. "Money, which is insured, can be replaced. Lives cannot."
Seattle Police Sgt. Sean Whitcomb echoed Foster's sentiment.
"It really doesn't matter if you're a bank teller or a citizen walking down the
street. Generally speaking, it's best to be a good witness," Whitcomb told
FOXNews.com. "And quite honestly, this is also true for people who are off-duty
police officers too."
Sloan, 29, has a lengthy criminal history, including convictions for theft and
robbery. He remains jailed on $1 million bail, officials at the King County
Prosecuting Attorney's Office said. Charges related to the attempted robbery
have not yet been filed.
2/20/11 (By Travis)
Swiss Vote to Keep Guns at Home
2/14/11 Wall Street Journal
Highest gun ownership but amongst the lowest amount of gun crimes?
Contrast this with the recent middle east violence, where citizens are not allowed to own guns, only the state has guns and the state is prepared to use them against its citizens to keep them subjected.
Wal-Mart Security Employees Fired for Disarming Store Gunman
2/15/11 AOL news
See also, 'A Tale of Two Tragedies' (VA shooting)
See also, 'Social Conservatism'