CT expatriat gleefully thumbing nose

[tattedupboy]

Upon closer inspection, CT's gun laws are more restrictive than I originally thought. For instance, machine gun possession is allowed only with permission from state/local authorities. No such restrictions are in effect in New Hampshire.

[FN1910]

Why wouldn't they? Why do you distrust law abiding citizens? The crime isn't being committed by law abiding citizens. Violence isn't being committed by law abiding citizens. Murder isn't being committed by law abiding citizens.


Ho! Ho! Ho! I'm sure you will want to show us the evidence of that claim.


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom.../statemhi2.xls

From the US Census Bereau Vermont is much higher in income than any southern state.

I am sure that I can fins the same type of data for intelligence if you would care to provide what basis you would accept. (IQ, Educational level, School performance status etc.)



Income really has nothing to do with morals/crime. In the 20's and 30's, blacks who were the poorest of the poor, discriminated against, and generally mistreated had a much lower crime and violence rate than did whites. They also had strong family units.

I have no idea where you got that information and would like to see some proof of it. As I said you can make any stats lie all you want to and such stats as this are prime examples of it. I also goes against any study that I have ever seen that says that crime and income are closely tied whether true or not.

Gee, that isn't what Alaska and Vermont do, is it? Criminals are not legally allowed to keep or carry guns.

And the population per square mile of criminals and percentage of criminals of the general population in Alaska compared to NYC is what?

I suppose that you also think that because some states don't have a speed limit on many of their highways that no speed limit on any highway will work.

[maybejim]

The Relationship Between Crime and Poverty in Black
Massachusetts. [1] This is a far cry from the hundreds of men placed in prisons per state, per year. As of January 1, 1821, there were roughly 147 black male inmates in the Massachusetts State Prison, while there were 2,140 white male inmates. If poverty did in fact create crime, the majority of prisoners would be black, since they were the majority who received financial aid payments, therefore labeling them as the poor population. As is evident by the figures presented, this is not a true
statement.

With the business and investment crime and scandels that we have seen, I have to wonder why you think income determines crime. Of course no doubt convicted criminals generally don't have high incomes.

And the population per square mile of criminals and percentage of criminals of the general population in Alaska compared to NYC is what?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying there are more criminals in NYC than in Alaska? Isn't that more of a reason that law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry?

But no, I wouldn't want to live in NYC or any of the crowded large cities. I remember rat studies in the 60's that showed crowding was more responsible for violence among the rats than any other factor.

[Boomboy007]

I am not sure of that as per the little book "How to Lie With Statistics". We tend to quote stats in our favor and make them enforce our beliefs. Too many times there are many more variables than just what we include with statistics.

But then you go on to base all of your arguments on some nebulous statistics that you pulled up "on the internets". Wee bit hypocritical, no?

The ingrained attitudes of the people in a locality may have much more to do with the safety of firearms than any training or permits. We like to quote stats from Alaska or Vermont on how permits don't matter but would the same laws in those states work in others?

What works in VT may not work in Mississippi.

As a native son of Tennessee, I would agree with you that that attitudes matter. I can think of few places where people are more universally armed, and yet gun violence in my native state is low. In fact, it seems that violent crimes are more common in the more restrictive areas. That said, just because people live in more densely populated areas does not mean that they have more crime PER CAPITA.

Very little of Alaska's land is highly populated such as in cities like New York and you can't convince me that the same laws the work in Alaska will work in NYC.

I will totally agree that there are many gun laws that are beyond reason as well as many other laws. But just allowing anyone that wants to walk around with a pistol on their side on 5th Ave. in NYC isn't going to work out like it does in AK or VT.

Actually, utilizing your logic, your fellow South Carolineans in Columbia are MORE THAN TWICE as likely to be murdered as those people who reside in New York City, according to the FBI numbers from most recent study year (2004).

My source: http://www.statestats.com/cit04r.pdf

My point here is that EVERY American citizens has a RIGHT to defend him or herself, as well as their families. Every citizens also has the RESPONSIBILITY to follow the code of law. You would love your wife, husband, child, parent, or self not one whit less if you lived on 6th and 42nd, Manhatten, than you would if you lived at Main and East in Wasilla. If their location is anywhere within the borders of the United States, they have that right courtesy of the second amendment. The fact that this right has been suppressed in some places is, to me, criminal. Trust me when I tell you that the criminals in New York already have a gun.

When people of lesser income are closely packed then crime goes up for some reason.

Vermont has a much higher income and higher average intelligence level than many Southern states.

This is ridiculous, insulting, and erroneous.MOST importantly, the critical quality when it comes to responsible firearm ownership and use is WISDOM. I don't believe that there is a standardized test for wisdom, and Intelligence Quotia data is highly subjective and controversial.

I understand where you are coming from, FN. Because of the inundation that we experience, it is easy to just follow along with "conventional wisdom". I mean, if you don't look at the resultant numbers (aka reality), gun control sounds pretty darn good! Of course, if you ignore reality, Communism sounds pretty good!

I would urge you to revisit some of what you believe to be true. It is a very difficult thing to critically deconstruct beliefs that you "feel" are right. There are a couple of books that might help you see the kind of critical thinking that has to be applied to things that we "feel" are right.

Amazon.com: Freakonomics Rev Ed LP: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything: Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner: Books

or

Amazon.com: Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel - Why Everything You Know is Wrong: John Stossel: Books

In the meantime, I surely hope that my city-mouse cousins get their rights, too!

[FN1910]

You are totally correct that criminal have guns, maybe at a higher rate than law-abiding people and everone wants them arrested or do you. If a criminal is walking down the street in VT with a gun fully exposed does a LEO have the right to ask him if he is a criminal before he goes in the gas station to rob it or does he have to wait untll he robs it and shoots the clerk? I find that most people favor the rights of the individual and say that until the criminal robs the store the LEO can't do anything. In NYC is that same criminal is walking down the street with the gun fully expose the LEO can stop and check to see if he is a criminal.

Yes criminals have guns but it seems that many people say that it is OK for them to have the guns until they use it. You also have to remember that at one time every criminal was a law abiding citizen that turned into a criminal. You seem to say that you don't want criminals having guns but how do you tell if a person is a criminal or not? Or maybe we should adhere to the thought than only criminals in jail shouldn't have guns, otherwise they are entitled to carry one where ever they go.

[maybejim]

I find that most people favor the rights of the individual and say that until the criminal robs the store the LEO can't do anything. In NYC is that same criminal is walking down the street with the gun fully expose the LEO can stop and check to see if he is a criminal.

So since all women are equipped to be prostitutes, you think the LEO should be able to stop them and check if they are criminals? That is exactly the same thing as what you are suggesting.

Yes criminals have guns but it seems that many people say that it is OK for them to have the guns until they use it.

Really? Then why is it against the law for convicted felons to possess a gun in virtually every state?

You also have to remember that at one time every criminal was a law abiding citizen that turned into a criminal.

You have to remember that most have criminal records that began when they were kids.

You seem to say that you don't want criminals having guns but how do you tell if a person is a criminal or not?

How do you tell if a woman is a prostitute or not? Your arguments are for stealing freedom in hopes of safety and we can readily see that that simply doesn't work.

[Boomboy007]

You are totally correct that criminal have guns, maybe at a higher rate than law-abiding people and everone wants them arrested or do you. If a criminal is walking down the street in VT with a gun fully exposed does a LEO have the right to ask him if he is a criminal before he goes in the gas station to rob it or does he have to wait untll he robs it and shoots the clerk?

There are two errors in your statement, FN. The first is that an LEO in VT can not stop someone walking down the street. An LEO can LEGALLY stop anyone for any reason. However, to do so without some probable cause would probably result in a very short career for that officer. Second, felons are very reluctant to attack victims that they suspect may be armed. The result? Vermont has one of the lowest (again) PER CAPITA violent crime rates in the nation. I, like many others, believe that this can be atttibuted in a large part to the friendly self protection laws in VT.

I find that most people favor the rights of the individual and say that until the criminal robs the store the LEO can't do anything.

Well, if the individual carrying is a felon and they get stopped for anything that results in their identification being checked (i.e. littering, speeding, etc.) then they will be arrested for felony gun possession and spend a few more years in prison. As far as the rights of the individual, then yes, I believe that. If you are a fan of "the greater good" above individual liberty, then you should press for a more socialistic government. The People's Republic of China is a very good example of the type of system that you espouse. Communism, in and of itself, is a beautiful idea. However, the human reality is that the system naturally gets corrupted by human beings. The result of this corruption is despotism. Nothing against any communist or socialist; if that is the system that they choose, more power to them.

However, OUR system protects the "everyman" (or woman ) by insuring that individual rights are respected. It results in a slower bureaucracy, but a much fairer society in the long run. Think of it like this: In the U.S. you are innocent until proven guilty. Say that rascal MaybeJim accuses me of some nefarious deed. He will have to show enough evidence that the state agrees that there is some malfeasance, and then they will have to prove it to a jury of people just like you and me. In China, you are guilty until proven innocent. That means that if the state says that you did something, it is up to YOU to prove that you did not. Now think of the last time that you were at home all alone reading a book. If someone down the street is victimized and the state decides that you are the one that they want to punish, how do you prove that you weren't?

Yes criminals have guns but it seems that many people say that it is OK for them to have the guns until they use it.

Again, felons CAN NOT legally be in possession of a firearm. It is not "OK" for anyone with a history of violent crime to own a gun. NOBODY that I speak with, ESPECIALLY the people on this forum, thinks that it is OK for violent criminals to own firearms. However, one thing that you might consider is "what do you consider a criminal"? This is one argument that some of the anti's out there want to explore. At what level, FN, would YOU determine the cutoff point? Rape, murder, armed robbery? Those are easy. How about fraud? Ever bounced a check? Then you're guilty. Reckless endangerment? That excludes everyone who has ever driven more than twenty miles an hour over the speed limit. How about tax evasion? I can't tell you how many ways it is to very easily fall into that one.

Ultimately, I guess, is the one point that every patriot must ask themselves: Is freedom worth the cost? That is because, FN, we risk paying for freedom with our very lives. That is the price we pay for liberty. Unfortunately, as people are beginning to learn in places like Great Britain or Australia, taking away firearms (or as George Washington called them, the "teeth of liberty") has made them less secure, not more secure.

Keep thinking, FN. It gets easier with practice!

Also, I really think that the two books I posted earlier would be great books for you to check out.

[Stratus41298]

I leave for vacation for a whole week and we start talking about prostitutes? hahaha.

In any case, I think we can all agree that there are many causes of crime and violence in this country. In my opinion the majority comes from lack of income and lack of education. I grew up pretty darn poor but my parents had education behind them and as a result taught me well. However, if one has always lacked in education, they live in a poor society with poor schools, they don't know any better to teach their child. Unfortunately this is where the family is supposed to move to a better place for their children. Education is the key, regardless of socio-economic status.

Hot topic. I'm glad to see people passionate about it. One of the biggest issues in this country is that noone talks about this stuff. How can we change this country if noone cares to talk about it's issues?

[Boomboy007]

I agree with you, but I think that you are only half right.

The lack of education is what makes the difference, but I believe that it is moral education that really matters. I have spent some time in some rural areas where the incomes were low, formal education rates were low, and most families traditionally had some kind of firearms. They taught their children respect for others, and the result was a much lower per capita violent crime rate.

Unfortunately, formal education does not teach the same types of respect. In fact,young men from wealthy families tend to commit sexual assault more often than other groups. The number one place this occurs: university.

(My source: A mixed-gender date rape prevention intervention targeting freshmen college athletes - Statistical Data Included | College Student Journal | Find Articles at BNET )

(interesting case: WEALTH, PRIVILEGE, RAPE Financier's grandson in second assault case)

Perhaps it might be their sense of entitlement?

I believe that a moral education is what really contributes to wisdom. I would rather be wise than be smart. Most people depend on organized religion to impart this, but even without religion, I think that parents can teach this kind of "golden rule" lesson.

I agree with you, Stratus, that these are great discussions to be having at all levels.

[Stratus41298]

Well put. Moral education is a must.

Oh, and thanks for the welcome! Unfortunately this week has just plain sucked. I'm glad it's over with.