[Lingster]

James Q. Wilson in the Los Angeles Times:

So far, not many prominent Americans have tried to use the college rampage as an argument for gun control. One reason is that we are in the midst of a presidential race in which leading Democratic candidates are aware that endorsing gun control can cost them votes.

This concern has not prevented the New York Times from editorializing in favor of "stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage." Nor has it stopped the European press from beating up on us unmercifully.

Leading British, French, German, Italian and Spanish newspapers have blamed the United States for listening to Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Assn. Many of their claims are a little strange. At least two papers said we should ban semiautomatic assault weapons (even though the killer did not use one); another said that buying a machine gun is easier than getting a driver's license (even though no one can legally buy a machine gun); a third wrote that gun violence is becoming more common (when in fact the U.S. homicide rate has fallen dramatically over the last dozen years).

The whole essay is excellent, so take a minute to read it.

[Lingster]

Well, one difference where you are is that criminals have lower risk of being harmed, which is why burglaries, muggings and such are so much more common in the U.K. than in the U.S.  In the U.S. there are relatively few burglars, because the risk-reward calculus is less favorable.

Also, it's very likely that in the U.K. defensive killings occur but are not reported at all, for fear of prison time.  Someone in Tony Martin's shoes today would likely finish off the wounded burglar and then bury the two of them in the garden, rather than subject himself to years in prison.

[Lingster]

I saw her at the Arnold last month.  She's a lot skinnier than that these days.  Still damned good-looking, though.

[Lingster]

however, that's only certain small areas of Manchester (Greater Manchester is a huge area), NOT the whole city.  Gun crime is worrying, especially amongst African-Caribbean communities in inner-city, poverty-ridden areas (especially in London), and it's something that Gordon Brown, or, in a year or so's time, David Cameron, will have to get a grip of.  However, move out of these small boroughs, and the problem all but disappears.  It seems to me that, of the crimes that take-place in the US, a large proportion are murders, whereas here there tends to be a more even spread in terms of murder, manslaughter, violent crime, theft, vehicle crime etc.  To be blunt about it, though, if I must be a victim of crime, I'd rather have my lights punched-out for my mobile phone or the contents of my wallet rather than have a couple of bullets through my heart.

Do you really think it's different here in the U.S.?  The homicide rate for black males in the U.S. is almost seven times that of white males, and most of those homicides occur in inner cities.  If you just look at the suburbs and rural areas, there's probably almost no difference between the homicide rates in Europe and the U.S., despite the fact that rural and suburban zones in the U.S. are probably some of the most heavily armed areas on the planet.

[Lingster]

Don't expect Japanese writing in English to make any sense.  They just pick words that sound nice to their ears.

[Lingster]

Is that the biggest cover photo those MFers make available online?

[Lingster]

One more thing about the duties of the president: his Constitutional veto power and the fact that the president is usually the leader of his political party give him a larger role in the national political life than his positive duties do.  The Congress must take his wishes at least into consideration to pass legislation, because he can sink most of it after it's passed and would otherwise become law.  And as the leader of the party he wields considerable power over other office holders and leaders within his party.

[Lingster]

This is worth watching, on the topic of British press bias:
[html][/html]

[Lingster]

Defend against who? If the weapons wouldnt be as easy to get there would be less crime.
and Police would manage to guard us better. Than you wouldnt need weapons. You know its a closed circle.

OK, the ship on firearms has sailed.  There are 300 million functioning firearms in the U.S., and maybe a couple billion more in the rest of the world.  We don't live in a world where weapons are hard to get and we never will, so any speculation about that is utopian fantasy.

Also, there's plenty of research showing that putting concealed weapons in the hands of citizens greatly reduces crime.  Dr. John Lott is the major authority on this subject.  For those of you who aren't aware, there's been a huge increase in crime in Britain since most firearm ownership was criminalized.  At this point, Manchester makes Manhattan look like Mayberry, in terms of petty crimes, burglaries, muggings and violent crime.  See these results and this article.

In terms of individual quality of life being adversely affected by crime, the United States sits well behind most of Europe – people in England and Wales are almost twice as likely as Americans to be the victim of a violent crime.  The murder rate is high in America, that's true, but it's a marginal number either way, with a murder rate of 0.042802 per 1000 people in the U.S., and 0.0140633 per 1000 in the United Kingdom.  So yes, the murder rate in the U.S. is three times the U.K. murder rate, but three times "practically zero" is still not a big number.  For example, the U.K.'s rate is three times the murder rate in Japan – so does the U.K. have a murder problem, too?

[Lingster]

The duties of the President of the United States are defined in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.  His basic function is to conduct foreign policy, command the armed forces and appoint officials to federal positions.  This has grown over time as the bureaucracy has grown, and he's expected to perform a lot of ceremonial head-of-state functions, as well.  But there are fifty governors with far greater manpower resources on-site in their states than the federal government has.

It is a very serious matter for a U.S. President to act forcibly in a state without a governor's permission.  I think it's only happened once in living memory, during the 1950s following the Brown vs. The Board of Education Supreme Court decision.  President Eisenhower was forced to federalize the Arkansas National Guard, exercising his constitutional authority to take control of a state militia, against the wishes of the Governor of Arkansas.  (Arkansas was also once part of French Louisiana, but is not nearly as much of a political clusterfuck.)

We don't widely hunt foxes in the U.S.  There are social aspects to it but the hoped-for outcome is usually to bring home food for your table.

In the U.S. we would have given Tony Martin a medal, not a prison term.

[Author]

Posts