Kennedy

I'd love to see a copy of it, but I sure as heck can't find one. If you could provide a link I'd be grateful. As yes, I used BCS numbers because that's all I could find that'd be somewhat useful. A better comparison to them would the the USA's NCVS, and that would show similar, though slightl smaller, differences. Also, I really would like to see this statement that says the US and the UK have similar crime rates. If you could repost the link or link back to your post that included it, I'd appreciate it. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What in the heck are you talking about. Crime rates between the US and UK are about as different as day and night. What is it that you think is the same? Crime in the UK far outpaces crime in the US. Violent crime in the UK far outpaces violent crime in the US. Homcides in the US far outweight homicides in the UK per population. Not exactly similar pictures if you ask me. You are talking about an interpretation, not simple facts. Please expound on your "culture of violence" theory. What countries do you consider "similar?" From what country do we have a 250% higher homicide rate? And since one rate hardly proves anything, what is that country's violent crime rate and overal crime rate compared to those of the US? So what? Would you prefer to be murdered by some other implement? The method of murder does not have a significant effect on the number of murders. What does this number come from. Would you care to compare that to the number ofguns sold each year and the number of guns owned in the US? I'm going to throw the brown flag at this one. Prove it. Actualy just about any impartial statistian will tell you that the Kleck study is the most reliable, but even if you choose to ignore peer reviewed journals, your "far smaller" numbers are so significant that even if they are true then they don't diminish the self defense arguments for gun ownership in the slightest. Even if we ignore that sudden drops in states that passed concealed carry laws were not correlated with similar drops in other areas, you make one very important argument for CCW supporters. That is: CCW laws do no increase crime - long term trends in carry states and no carry states were both downwards, and the rate of drop in the carry states was equal to or better than no carry states. Peaks and valleys happen. The rate of change is not unheard of, or alltogether unexpected. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

1. What do you mean by FAR higher? 2. You have data to PROVE it? 3. If it's true, then the argument that the US has a culture of violence that accounts for its higher homicide rate is clearly false. 4. You need to be less confused about who you are talking about; is it England, Scotland, Ireland, Britain or the UK? First off I am growing tired of showing you the same statistics over and over kallend. I've shown you in several threads that my statements are true, backing them up with government data from the US and the UK. Second, the UK government's site gets harder and harder to deal with every year, and more and more obfuscation or incompetence is present each time I search for anything there. For some reason (their site is terrible), I can no longer find population data for any time after 2001 for the UK. 2001 population England 49,138,831 Wales 2,903,085 England and Wales violent crime: 2,420,000 against adults Notice that that says against adults. nowhere in dozens of pdfs could I find a simple statement of how many violent crimes were committed, and by this definition and their own statements, they leave out two years worth of those most likely to be victims of violent crimes - 16 and 17 year olds. That is a population of 52,041,916, which gives a ratio of approximately 4650 violent crimes per 100,000 population in England and Wales, so the real number is even higher once you include the violent crimes against 16 and 17 year olds. The FBI [url"http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/index.html"]gives us the following statements,[/url] very clearly, for the year 2005 - 4650 crimes versus 469 crimes per 100,000 residents. I'd say ten times the number of violent crimes qualifies as Far more, wouldn't you kallend? Ah ha, here is a post of mine from two years ago witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Which rights specifically? Just a few examples: the right to make contracts, the right to own real property the right to sign away their rights, give legal consent the right to vote the right to smoke, drink, gamble and so on Unless you've read the contract, I wouldn';t accuse the school of changing it. The odds are there is something in there that they can interpret many different ways, and covers a change in testing policy. If there isn't then the parents have the right to react how they see fit. Some will say right on, come will complain, and some will take their business (their children) elsewhere. Such is life in the private sector. (where all schools should be,as far as I'm concerned) Thats a choice you made though, and knew what you were signing up for. However had you started a school year with no knowledge of such testing then were called to take one due to "profiling" it would be a different story. I did start the public school with no idea that I'd have to agree to testing in order to particpate in activities that my parent's tax dollars had already paid for. Would you call it profiling that only athletes were subjected to this potential testing? Besides, where did profiling come into this discussion? Weren'y we talking about random tests? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It depends on where you live. Here in the US we have a patchwork of laws on just about any issue related to guns, except the ones that really matter, like murder and assault by pointing being illegal. In most places there is no requirement to store your firearms any certain way. The places that have the most gun control, like Washington DC, have requirements that guns be disassembled, locked, separate from ammunition, and so on. There is one interesting thing to remember. England has a far higher violent crime rate, and a higher overall crime rate than the US. The one place the US far outstrips the UK is in homicides. While far more brits, scots, irish, etc will be victims of a serious crime, the number of Americans killed per population is higher. It is something that is written about and studied every year, but one of those sociological conundrums that is never adequately explained. One thing to remember is that most of the murders here are committed by felons against felons. Another important consideration is that most criminals here avoid contact with their victim liike that plague. Things like home invasion and robbery are more rare here. As for kallend's comments about criminals stealing guns, you have to remember that with more than 200 million guns in the country, they are probably the most commonly owned item of value after jewelry and small electronics. He is also incorrect, as more burlars aim for jewelry and personal electronics than firearms. The last comment I'm going to make is about the choice of how to store firearms. Different guns have different uses, though many overlap. Some are ment by their owner to be used for self defense. In that case, it must be accessible, and locking it in a steel case in the livingroom renders it useless. Just as our right to self defense is recognized here (in most places) our right to choose what to use for self defense and how to store it is also respected. For now. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Which wing? ps - RoadRash has probably sat down for coffee with him or had dinner with his wife. She seems to know everybody from that school. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You're level of unabshed racism is truly astounding. You rank right up there with psychotics in the middle east or africa who slaughter each other on a biblical scale bacause someone did something to someone else a few millenia ago. Heaven help us all. I'm an American of European descent. Not only do I not care that someone may claim Hornblower was getting blown by someone who looked different, I just had a civilized conversation with someone who looked VERY different from me about late colonial American history, and one topic of conversation was whther or not some founding fathers found their poontang with slaves. Guess what - I didn't go ballistic. If you want to tell me that Joe Foss or Chesty Puller were banging Thais in Bangkok or mounting Japanese ladies on Mount Surabachi, I'd laugh at you, but I doubt I'd pull out racial slurs or yell at you in anger. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

(A) Minors have very few rights compared to adult citizens unless they've been emancipated. The only place I can think of where they have equal or greater rights is in the criminal justice system. (B) Like the man said, this example is in a private school. If the parents don't like it, they can send their children elsewhere. (C) While I signed a peice of paper every season saying I would submit to drug tests if the school asked, I never took one for them (I had to take one for a job). witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

And anyone who thinks it's because the greedy oil people are too lazy to care is just beyond redemption. "They're greedy enough to lie cheat and steal but too lazy to make money." uh huh... (not saying this is you at all, but these freaks are out there) The only reason there haven't been more refineries built is because the US government has made is impossible to build a new plant that would actually make any moeny. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

OK, so you believe it is OK to allow damage to property in the name of "avoiding confrontation." (if the rioting part of a protest is seeking that confrontation) In theory I might agree with you. I wouldn't be opposed to say, allowing marchers to cross a lawn, trampling sod and maybe ruining a not-particularly important garden, if it made sense to an overall plan. I disagree about allowing protesters to vandalize national landmarks when they could've been stopped hundreds of feet prior to the grounds with no additional threat. My question is where do you draw the line in allowing criminal acts to continue in the name of avoiding conflict? disorderly conduct by several different means: you appear ok with it vandalsm: you appeare ok with it simple assault on LEOs: you appear ok with it Where do you draw the line? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What is the last significant military action this country took that you think was "ok?" Iraq II? Afghanistan? Iraq I? Somailia? Eastern Europe? Vietnam? Korea? WWII? ps - have you read the "top ten iraq war myths" thread, and what do you think of it? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

That's exactly what I meant to include in my last post. The last thing you want to do with the violent mab is make them think you can't handle things. It's a damned LUCKY thing it didn't go bad, and a good thing that great men and women were wearing the badge that day. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

That's why you have to use it carefully, trust the SOPs/ROEs, and have a good written plan and training in place. It's also why the use of chemical munitions on crowds (by police) is a very carefully orchestrated thing, regardless of what you see on TV. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Why should he have allowed rioters access to Capitol grounds. I read several accounts and spoken with secondary sources about this, and there seems to be no logic behind pulling deeper into the Capitol. If the violent part of the crowd was stopped, what reason is there to pull back. No one here has suggested violent means (other than you) except where it is necessary to make an arrest. I'm not a fan of mass arrests - the tend to seem overly broad, unjustified, and very heavy handed. I'm not a fan of endagering cops to avoid an incident that violent parts of a demonstration really want to happen. Cops are placed in a spot to protect it and that people inside. This is no way hampers the demonstration except in preventing it from damaging that spot. If you want to march three feet away from the line, fine. If you want to stand there and yell ugly things at the cops standing the line, fine. But if you want to do anything physical to that line, you ought to get your ass thrown in jail, and cops are legally and morally justified in using necessary force to effect that arrest. (edit: spelling) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

While we don't have alla the details, the information given in the articles I've read make it look like the top cop screwed the pooch. If the cops were needed to fall back to reestablish a stronger line, or to support another "flank" that needed help, that would make perfect sense. If falling back gave the officers better tactical and strategic position, thta would make perfect sense. If falling back was the choice simply to avoid any and all physical confrontation with rioters, then top cop royally screwed the pooch. If he was willing to give the rioters all ground short of the actual building, then I don't see why he wouldn't just set the line near that area. There is no good reason to pull back your line two or three times. That is a very dangerous situation for the crowd control officers. It also seems cowardly to grant rioters the ability to vandalize the grounds he is sworn to protect. I would wager that he violated his own specific plan and written general guidelines for crowd control on this one. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Those shoot me first garments/accessories are the worst. It's a ton of fun to watch a bunch of cops go out for a group dinner with their spouses. The resulting fashion disaster is thoroughly entertaining. Some people think forma over designer blue jeans and nice shoes means a button up shirt with the tails out, other think a ugly tan vest qualifies, while my personal favorite is the fanny pack over/under the three piece suit. Oh, to have had a camera phone... With about a dozen ways to responsibly carry, you wouldn't think it'd be that hard to find something that works (if not, I'm sure at least one badge at the party has a bloody safe in his SUV/pickup/crown vic) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Don't ever settle what club you're going to later that night by "best shooter calls it," when there's a pink pistol in the house. ps - kind blows that whole "gun nuts are all beerswilling neanderthal rednecks" thing out of the water, doesn't it? pps - not that there's anything inherently wrong with beerswilling neanderthal rednecks... witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

ummm... What photos? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Before taking up this potentially very entertaining activity, des anyone know what the writing above the countdown means? I don't wear (or show) writing that I can't read or haven't had reliably translated. I've seen tattoos and t-shirts that were NOT very complimentary towards the wearer/bearer. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Interesting. I'd say when there are reasonably good arguments on both sides - vote for the one that does (and has the potential to do) less harm. Especially when the question has to do with one DOING to another. Making it law give those who can, the ability to prosecute when necessary. Anyone who is actually worried about getting caught spanking a one year old baby - REALLY should stop spanking that baby. Child abuse is and has been against the law for some time. The problem with this law and others like it is the government deciding for us what is right. Contrary to popular belief, the government cannot and for the love of all that's holy should not protect us from ourselves. If you have one feeling about spankings, fine, go ahead. If someone disagrees, that's their perogative. Just don't be so arrogant that you think you know what's best for everyone else. (by "you" I mean lawmakers, not you in particular, bella) We all need to remeber that when the government intervenes in an argument on our side, we should be wary. Whose side will they take up for the next issue? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Those are fun, but while they are VERY effective for "serious social encounters," they can be less than socially responsible. It's generally bad manners to hit someone else even after you put the bad guy down for good. Buck shot doesn't tend to overpenetrate if it hits the target, but with nine little liability makers, odds are higher than we like that there will be collateral damage, especially in densely packed urban and suburban areas. PolyShok transfers nearly 100% of its energy to the first thing it hits. If that thing is a human, that human will be missing pieces, or the yellow mushroom will 'shake loose the mortal coil.' If not, even thin sheet rock walls are enough to open the round and disperse lethal energy within two or three feet of the wall. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Once again proving I'm a pistol shooter who only enjoys dabbling in the ability to truly reach out and touch someone. Since this debate is dead and no one has raised a decent reason why .50s should be resitrcted, let alone banned, anyone care to move on? I must admit I've truly enjoyed playing with PolyShok rounds from an 870 Police Magnum. My God, those things are wonderful. They have the kick of bird shot, fly as accurately as a slug (or better), hit harder than any slug on earth, and best of all they lose lethal energy within three feet of their first barrier (wall, water, bady, etc). Their biggest drawbacks (and possibly only drawbacks) are that they are military, LEO, security-only sales, and they are expensive as heck. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Two questions: (1) Why a sabot round? Why not fire a solid round from a barrel that caliber? If the round would damage or wouldn't take spin from the barrel, see #2. (2) Why not use a steel core (steel inside lead inside a copper jacket)round from a .308? I know these exist. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So many guns... so little in the pay check. Man, I love the job security and benefits, but government pay sucks! A nice little (little, HAH!) .50 is on my wish list, but I have to admit it's not in my top ten. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It would be so nice if that cartoon reflected reality, but it was drawn by someone who has a lot more faith in Pelosi than I do. Considering the setbacks and failure to lead her party that she's had already, and that fact that she's no more innocent than most other politicians, I really don't see this "reform" going anywhere. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*