In his nationwide effort for tighter gun control, Mayor Michael Bloomberg attributes historic crime lows in New York to strict gun laws that are strictly enforced.It's interesting that the gun-rights folks say exactly the opposite. What do you think?
"If we are serious about protecting lives," he wrote in a recent newspaper editorial, "we have to get serious about enforcing our laws."
The National Rifle Association has dismissed Bloomberg's anti-gun campaign over the years as a publicity stunt and said last week that tighter laws would have no effect on public safety and crime.
But leading criminologists around the country say Bloomberg is right, for the most part. While acknowledging policing isn't the only factor in reducing gun violence, they cite the all-time low number of slayings in a city where most people are killed with guns.
Please leave a comment.
NRA TOUTS SWISS GUN IN EVERY HOUSE. LET'S AGREE TO OFFER THEM SWISS GUN REGS.......SwitzerlandMain article: Gun politics in Switzerland
ReplyDeleteSwitzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation.[96] During their enrollment in the armed forces, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes.[97] They are not allowed to keep ammunition for these firearms in their homes, however; ammunition is stored at government arsenals. Up until September 2007, soldiers received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home.[98] Swiss gun laws are considered to be restrictive.[99] Owners are legally responsible for third party access and usage of their weapons. Licensure is similar to other Germanic countries
We're not Switzerland and don't want to be. The Czech Republic is a much better model of European gun laws.
DeleteC'mon Greg, how many times have you and your fanatical friends referenced Switzerland in these discussions?
DeleteActually, I've been cautious for the most part in my comments about Switzerland. The whole country in all its aspects is too orderly for my tastes.
DeleteIt is interesting to note that one of the States which used to comprise of the Soviet Republic of Czechoslovakia that Greg repeatedly uses to exemplify his (rather dystopian) vision of the "idyllic" armed society requires a licence for a an ordinary citizen to possess a lethal firearm. Along with other European States, the former Czechoslovakia has implemented many of the policies which are discussed on this blog.
DeleteThe Czech people wanted their gun rights recognized after decades of oppression from tyrants. What restrictions they have or are adding comes from being a part of Europe. America remains the shining example of liberty on this subject.
DeleteYeah, liberty with collateral damage.
DeleteRemember that for teh gunsucks at tne NRA the only issue is sales and profits. This impedes their ability to convince morons to buy more weapons.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that argument is the fact that rates of violent crime are down across the entire country, regardless of gun laws. Gun laws have nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with control.
ReplyDeleteYou must think that "control" line sounds cool. It really is foolish. Most gun control folks want what's best for the country and because that might inconvenience you, you get all adolescent on us. "They just want to control people." It's crap, Greg and I suspect you know it. In fact you repeat several crappy things over and over again that I suspect you don't even believe yourself. We've seen plenty of indications that loyalty to your cause takes precedence to honesty and fair argumentation.
DeleteHow about you stop trying to psychoanalyze me? Take what I say for what it's worth. I do mean my comment about control. There's nothing mature or adult about submitting to the control of tyrants. That's exactly what this is about.
DeleteAnd it's not just on the question of guns. The government always seeks control, and we must always resist. I oppose gun control as much as I oppose the PATRIOT Act. I oppose gun control as much as I oppose cameras on every street. I oppose gun control as much as I oppose warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, or any other violation of rights in the name of security.
Given your other positions, you should stand with me. I find your hatred of guns to be inexplicable.
Greg, I grew up in and around newspapers (yeah, I'm that old) so that influenced my views of civil liberty. What far too few people realize is that the infringement of any right is a matter of control. The absurdity of limiting the exchange of ideas by instituting "free speech zones" on college campuses, the provisions of the Patriot Act (and subsequent acts), further efforts at gun control...they are all attempts at control. Whether proposed and passed with the most noble of intentions or as part of some power-grabbing scheme, the end result is still an increase in control. I refuse to join the ranks of either the left or right wing foil hat people. Instead, my conclusion is that ever increasing control over citizens is inherent in the nature of government. That doesn't make it any more acceptable. In fact, it means every generation needs to understand that even in the absence of some deliberate attempt to usurp power, government control is an ever present threat to liberty.
DeleteThe problem isn't merely limited to the Second Amendment. America, relishing in it's military omnipotence, has such a powerful world presence that it fails to realize that the real enemy is within. There have been so many restriction that have been erroneously placed on State interests that the current system has created a State grossly incapable of defending the most fundamental human right: life.
DeleteThe United States Constitution implicitly prohibits all Federal action, and then proceeds to establish exceptions (commonly known as "Enumerated Powers") to enable the Federal Government to carry out limited duties which exceed the authority of the individual State. The power of the States which comprise the union, are limited by the (typically negative) "rights" found in their native constitutions, or more recently, the provisions of the Federal Constitution which have been deemed to apply to such.
The current system illustrates the backwards notion that individuals (as opposed to the collective State) are (somehow) endowed with "rights" (such as the right to hate, the right to evade law enforcement, the right to own killing machines, and the like) and that, upon the formation of a collective society, and a State to rule over such, subjects grant necessary power to the State in order for such to fulfill specific duties.
Such a concept is ridiculous, in addition to being inherently dangerous, as the common subject has no rights in a civilized society. When a government is formed, all rights previously retained by individuals are collectivized, and left to the discretion of the State.
We need to rethink our concept of "crime" before such "crime" consumes us all. Therefore the role of the State's legal codes ought to be re-evaluated to allow certain actions, as opposed to prohibiting certain actions.
Government ought to tell the people what they can lawfully do, instead of what they can't.
It's interesting to see that E.N.'s defense of tyranny makes it through comment moderation. I wonder if he heard about the report on prison camps in North Korea. Free American citizens are using satellite images to identify the camps and shame the regime.
DeleteWhat the hell are you talking about now, "it's interesting" that his comment made it through moderation?
DeleteHe hadn't been around in a while, and you don't post your comment policy.
DeleteI still don't get you. I questioned you remark because it makes it sound like I delete comments capriciously. You know I don't.
Delete