Kennedy

You refuse to answer a question because you claim that comparison of national crime rates is meaningless, then in the next paragraph demand an answer to a question you posed based upon, thats right, comparison of national crime rates. Comparison of rates is basically useless. Trends in crime rates can be somewhat useful, though limited in practical applications. I was simply pointing out that our crime rateis dropping... (while gun ownership rates continue to rise) ...and that your rates are much higher are much less consistent... (while guns are outlawed) Guns are not a cause of crime or of anything else. They are a tool, nothing more, nothing less. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

States' rights and the constitutional separation of powers prevent congress from stepping into this (see amendments nine and ten). The responsibility lies with the school board, the administrators, and the school staff. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Thank you guys for making my point. Bush is an overacheiver compared to Kerry, who spent 20 years spending the divorce settlement running businesses into the ground. So tell me, do you believe the Kerry liespropaganda, or do you support Kerry despite the falsehoods, broken promises and misdirection? Boy, wasn't thatproductive Kallend? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I prefer to keep things civil (and thank you fod doing the same), though I appreciate an acid wit. What you are "willing to bet" is completely irrelevant. I could say I'm willing to be the exact opposite, or any other position, and we hit an impass. Without some sort of facts or stats to back up your claim, we lose the ability to honestly disagree. Again, without some sort of evidence as to the veracity of your claim, this cannot go anywhere. Do you have anything to back this up? In my experience, the black market can expand to accomodate just about any demand possible. You are, however, far, far more likely to be the victim of a crime. England's victimization rate is over 26%. That rate for the US is around 4%. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

There's not much I can say here except that you are wrong. If you won't even consider that, let alone accept it, then there is nothing I can do either way. "There is none so blind as he who will not see." So you would disbelieve the truth because it doesn't fit with your hypothesis? What happened to discovering the facts and then deciding? "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've alrady made up my mind." Refuse to believe it all you want, that doesn't make it less true. Who cares if Americans choose firearms while Brits choose other weapons? Do you really care what is used to kill you? Would you prefer stabbing or bludgeoning to being shot? I don't dismiss the statistics on either side of the pond. However you are trying to take numbers across national boundaries. You need to realize that things are not as simple as you want them to be. I'm also still waiting for you to address the fact that our crime is in decline, while yours is booming, while our firearms ownership rate rises and you have outlawed guns to the peasantry. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

(A) I had a higher opinoin of you than this. Duely reevaluated. (B) There are good cops in the world, and they outnumber bad ones. (C) I heard this argument applied to skydivers almost verbatim by some locals in a DZ town (they added "no respect for property). I sat and talked with them. They still hate the bad jumpers, but they don't hate all jumpers anymore. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

As has been discussed ad nauseum, even in these forums, straight comparison of crime rates country to country is invalid. It becomes more so the further away and more different the countries are. Seeing as England is across and ocean, part of a different continent, and a very different culture, any direct comparison of numbers is useless as best, misleading at worst. I'll say it again, our homicide, violent crime, and overall crime rates are dropping. What are they doing in England? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Fear of crime is something we measure in this country. 16% of people in this country fear being involved in a violent crime. 2.2% of people in this country are actually injured in a violent crime. (British Crime Survey 2003/2004) Seems like people's fears are actually way way above what the reality of the situation is. And you're hearing first hand testimony here that people don't feel particularly threatened. (edited to add source... incase you hadn't guessed it). Jeffrey must have hit the nail right on the head. Only 16% of people in your country fear being involved in crime, but over 25% of your people actually ARE victimized by a crime each year. There is testimony from people in the US that they feel safe walking alone at night in New York and Chicago. Does that mean you will believe American cities are safe now? edit: you can follow the difference between being victim of a crime and being injured in a crime, right? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Maybe you haven't checked the statistics from your Home Office, but your violent crime rate (ENgland and Wales) was higher than the violent crime rate here in the US. Also, our crime rates are dropping slowly but consistently. Are you aware that yours are rising, and have been since at least the time your guns were banned? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It does me no comfort or reassurance to think that there are some people out there who choose not to be violent criminals simply because they are dissuaded out of it by the prospect of being killed by a homeowner. Like, they're sitting there going, "Y'know, I have no other problem with robbing and maybe killing people except for the danger to me that exists in such a pursuit, so I think I'll go legit." Seems to me that they are just always on the precipice of doing honest people harm, if that's the tenuouis way in which they come to be on the right side of the law. -Jeffrey I agree. I was just trying to point out that being confronted by a home owner with a shotgun would, assuming they live to make a choice, encourage them to at least stick to crimes of property where citizens are not confronted. (burglary rather than home invasion; theft rather than robbery; etc) Like you, I realize that in the real world, there are people who cannot and will not obey the laws that make society function. Defending yourself and society from them is a vital responsibility. Like you, I take that responsibility seriously. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Pretty difficult if your a kid, well more difficult than going to your parents drawer. I am certain that your feeling that its your right to have a gun will overpower what I consider to be reason, but just consider it briefly the next time you hear about a kid getting shot, or opening fire on a school. I have some news for you, and while you may not want to believe it, it is in fact true. (1) It is not difficult to get your hands on a gun in England. Anyone willing to break the law can have one in a day or less. (2) Believing that I have the right to the best means of self defense does not make me a heartless demon. It hurts everytime I hear about a kid, or any other innocent, getting hurt by a criminal. (3) Yes, it may be harder to get a gun when there isn't one in the house, but is it significantly harder? Is the difference between a criminal spending 15 minutes really that much worse than him spending four hours? (4) Any kid who wants to go shoot up his school or classmates is not going to balk at buying a gun off the streets. Stealing rights from his parents and other adults doesn't stop him. It barely slows him down. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

It would seem to me that good Tac Com and a second officer would have been a better option than a tazer. You want to call additional officers to every trespassing event? You really have no concept of the limited resources and strained timeframe under which police officers operate, do you? Cops can't spend all day and multiple officers at every complaint call they receive. Do you want to fund a police department four to five times the size that you have now? The taser took care of the problem, the officer removed the trespasser, and everyone got to go home. Who's really surprised that another perp complained after they made the cops use force on them? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You don't deal with many elderly people, do you? They can fight like the devil, but they are still frail. Who are you to say that a baton would be less likely to kill the woman. Being struck even once would probably break whatever bone was hit. Being shocked just put her to the ground. It also did it without requiring the officer to go down with her. What makes you think the baton is less likely to kill a 75 year old than a taser? Batons are generally used to subdue someone to/on the ground. It is not a good choice for getting a person to move. Yes I have been hit with a taser as demonstration, and it hurt like hell. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand? I mean really folks, if this cop had used a baton to beat this woman to the ground, how many of you would be out here crying about excessive force, as making wisecracks about how it's "pretty friggin sad that cops can't move an old lady without beating on her with batons?" witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

What weapon is not potentially lethal? A baton can kill you, particularly when you're 75. Being wrestled can kill you, particularly when you're 75. A taser has never killed a person after only one or two shocks. (that I know of, please tell me if this is no longer true) Everything on an officer's belt is potentially lethal. Even chemical spray. It's a matter of choosing wrich option is safest for everyone involved. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

How in God's name did you get that out of: Kevin, the man said dying for the UN effort was worth it, but that doing it without UN consent was not. It doesn't get much more simple than that. He believes that being part of a UN effort somehow mean we will succeed, while doing the same thing unilaterally guarnatees failure and inabilty to affect the outcome. By the way, I tend to believe what people say when they are not running for election far more than when they are fishing for votes. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

That's what I said. Our military doesn't fail. It's the politicians and the diplomats who fail. They've already failed once, requiring war, and they fail again in asking things of the military that is not their job. Our military can win damn near any fight we ask it to win. It's a question of whether or not we can handle the ramifications of winning. Going back to origins of this thread, the issue was Kerry and his view that our national defense is less important than the decisions of the UN. Do you agree with that? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

The loss in Vietnam was not due to military inability, it was due to the administration restricting it to tasks that did not accomplish the goal. My answer is quite simple. No, troops should not die in a war where the desired results are not attainable. However, I do not believe there are military tasks that our troops cannot accomplish, so your question comes at the issue from the wrong angle. Politicians and diplomats fail. Our troops do not. Example: I tell you your goal is to run from the twenty yard line into the end zone (north). Then I tell you that the only acceptable means for accomplishing this are running towards either sideline (east and west). Is the failure your fault? Are you unable to run into the endzone? Or have you been given a task that you could accomplish except that I have stopped you? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Give me an example of a conflict where the US military is/would be unable to achieve the desired results. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Yeah, he supports hunters, as long as they use only O/U shotguns, non-centerfire rifles, and are members of the seven-figure club. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Does he believe the USA cannot get the desired result in conflict but somehow UN support tips the scales? (oh yeeeeeah, the UN doesn't have troops of it's own, and uses ours) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You obviously weren't at Maryland (UMCP) when the basketball team beat Duke in the NCAA tournament. One asshat wanted to pick a fight with me because I was wearing a blue sweatshirt (Duke is light blue, UM is red/yellow/black). I suppose the fact that my bright yellow and black athletic pants with MARYLAND in big letters didn't get though to him. oh, and of course the idea that it's wrong to assault someone bsed on their team preferance never crossed his tiny mind. one more thing: GO TERPS !! and dUCK Fuke witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Washington Post one exerpt (you may have to read this one a few times) So the UN can effectively win conflicts, but the USA can't. So dying for the UN is ok, but dying for your country is not. Thanks, I think we got it, John. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

That's where I don't agree. What if this woman had a pacemaker? What effect does a taser have on that? I think it's more of a risk of death than the other options. Sure, she might be more likely to get a broken leg from the baton, but that's not going to kill her. All I know is that I've never read or heard of any instatnce where a single use of the taser has caused serious harm to a person. What about following her from a safe distance and calling for backup? Kev, the officer was called to the scene to remove a tresspasser. It's her job to get the person out of the building and off the property. Following is out. Back up is also unnecessary. The two viable options for the officer were continuing to struggle empty handed, pulling out the baton, using chemical spray, or using the taser (I'm assuming they are issued chem spray, that may not be the case). Of those four options, which is better? If it were me, I would've done it empty handed. But it wasn't me- it was the female officer, Macon. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

OK, so here's a thought: punish the criminals!! It may be an extreme idea over there, but when you put criminals in prison, they're not hurting the public. When you keep them there a long time for violent crimes, the next one may balk at following in his footsteps. Oh, and by the way, getting a gun in England is not difficult. Your smugglers and organized crime have no trouble doing it. Anyone who wants one gets one. It's called a black market. No law known to man has ever stopped one from operating. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

No, that's a blanket statement and I don't like blanket statements. A 75 year old woman swatting at you does not fit that that criteria. Even though the officer doesn't know how psycho the woman is, and even though people have been hospitalized for attacks by "golden girls," and even though the officer's gun is within arms reach of the woman? That's not one decision away from lethal force encounter? That's the point I was making: for an officer, every physical struggle is one step away from a lethal force encounter, and the officer is not the one who decides whether or not to take the step. All the officer can do is try to prevent it from going to that level. That depends on a lot, but in general, no, not if the baton is used properly. Getting hit in the legs with a baton has much less chance of accidentally killiing than tasing the elderly. Um, this lady broke ribs falling in her back yard, Kev. A baton strike to the legs of an elderly person would probably snap a femur. Like I said, how much would it have hurt the woman to be borne to the ground by an officer. Probably more than a fall. Also, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever died from two or less shocks by a taser. It has always been multiple shocks that led to eventual injury/death. The taser is supposed to be used in situations where lethal force is not required. It's like a joint lock or a baton strike. It's pain compliance. What I picture is this uppity stubborn old woman, who wouldn't listen to anyone. She got it in her head that she didn't want to leve, and it took time and force to make her get up for the door. She then got it in her head that she wanted into the cafeteria, and the officer was having none of it. The officer stood between the woman and the cafe, and the woman swung at her. Obviously, this wouldn't justify shooting her, but de-escalation has gone out the window. At this point I can see the woman continuing to press against the officer and trying to get by. For an offcier, distance is your friend. This woman was threatening by struggling with the officer. The officer chose the taser over the baton. I think it was a good choice. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*