> In a message dated 7/8/98 6:11:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> email@example.com writes:
> << No, police cheifs attribute the reduction to improved police work (of
> course, they
> need to take the credit), while the prime police cheif lobbying organizations
> anti-gun, while the rank and file police officers and their representatives
> pro-gun, and they will all tell you that the reduction is a result of more
> and active private citizens.>>
> Well, I live in the city, and I can't recall hearing any rank and file police
> officer saying anything of the sort. My friend happens to be one in fact,
> graduated a few years ago, and he certainly doesn't think so. Matter of fact,
> many seem to think that rates are going down because citizens are AVOIDING
> problem areas, not taking care of problem areas with firearms.
> << If you have a population of people that is directly descended from a
> population of serfs and peons, you will of course have a much more cattle-
> acceptance of gun control, and gun control will be irrelevant, since a
> population will have a much smaller percentage of deviant personalities than
> that is made up of people who were kicked out of that cattle-like
> The French people have gone through FIVE different governments in the time we
> have had ONE government. That's hardly cattle-like. Perhaps you should
> review the history of Ireland, and see how "cattle-like" they were to British
> government rule.
The level of violence in Ireland since the time of troubles has always been lower than the US average rate, and we had no real war going on here.
> As far as deviant personalities and behavior goes, try
> visting the red-light district of Amsterdam.
"Harmless" social behavior has been tolerated, while 'anti-social', 'sociopathic' behavior, like defending oneself, and insisting on posessing the means to do so, are heavily frowned upon.
> The overall trust and support of
> government actually rates higher in the United States than most other nations
> (no I can't recall the names of the polls or studies, so take it with a
If you are counting stats as of RIGHT NOW, then it obvious that our currently top economy has most to do with it. If you had asked the same question in 1994-96 it would have been a much different story.
> Point here that the thesis you offered is simplistic and doesn't
> account for a large amount of evidence that indicates contrary to the thesis.
> As far as crime rates go, I am not at all sure about this, but (pay attention
> here Mark) I think that some European nations actually have higher rates of
> rape and certain violent crimes than does the United States, as well as higher
> rates of burglary.
This is obvious, if true. Since nobody can protect themselves with firearms, it logically follows that they will be more likely to fall prey to criminals of this sort with no recourse for self defense. However, US statistics only account for crimes where someone was victimized. They do not account for the 2.5 million incidents of law abiding citizens successfully defending themselves each year. If those people were not armed, they would also be victims, contributing to crime rate even higher than it currently is, and their lack of means of defense would allow criminals to get away, encouraged to continue criminal behavior.
> The fact that one's ancestors were oppressed and accustomed to questionless
> obediance does not mean that one today will also be accustomed questionless
> obediance. As an explanation of foreign populations' acceptance of gun
> control, it simply does not work.
I dunno, Japan and China are fine, fine examples.