On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:07:46 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:43:40 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news:rdmdneAqLLgtsw_XnZ2dnUVZ_hNi4p2d@earthlink. com...
Don Foreman wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:08:27 -0700, "Bill Noble"
wrote:
Do you regard suggestions lacking force of law as meaningless? Would
you prefer your city council to have more absolute power to dictate
your behavior?
It may seem incredibly alien to y'all in Kalifornia, but out here in
flyoverland the notion of a bunch of guys (and gals) getting together
and suggesting whatever to their fellow citizens is quite acceptable.
Matter of fact, it's part of what we elected them to do. We even
understand the difference between a resolution and legislation.
yes, I regard suggestions lacking the force of law as "meaningless" in
the
context of a government body - they should not wast their time, the
dollars
to light the building while they debate it, or anything else unless
there is
an action to be taken - this is no more meaningful, per what you are
telling
me, than the "suggestion" that we get out of iraq that some city
councils
passed. Now, if they said that there would be free amunition, paid for
by
city taxes, that is a government act (we could debate its wisdom), but
otherwise, this is strum-und-drag (hope I spelled it right)
Sturm und Drang.
Perhaps a lot depends on the suggestability and even responsibility of
the populace in question. If nobody in the populace (say in
California) will do anything that's good for the greater number unless
compelled to by law, then suggestions would indeed be useless.
However, if a populace really believes in the leaders it elects and is
strongly motivated to do "the right thing", then suggestions could be
very effective. They might even be more effective than laws, which
must be enforced (cost) and violators must be punished (more cost).
Laws are obviously necessary with any real populace, but I also think
that resolutions can be useful and have beneficial effect.
Don, I live about three miles from the Belleview City Hall. A lot of
people around here are armed, and well trained. The idea is to let the
criminals know that there are less protected places that improve their
chance of survival.
I can see why. With a population of less than 4,000, Belleview has 32
registered sex offenders and a personal crime rate four times higher than my
town, which is 17 miles from Newark. My town, with three times the
population, has one registered sex offender. Violent crime runs 2.5 X higher
in Belleview.
Personal armor would be a good idea, too. Even better would be moving
somewhere else. d8-)
This data suggests that having "a lot of people armed and
well-trained"apparently has not resulted in lower crime stats for
Belleview than for Ed's town in N.J. which sounds like a nice
place to live. There may also be differences in avg income, pct of
pop near or below poverty level, population density and various other
demographics that might have some influence on incidence of violent
crime.
Perhaps the statement was made by the City Council in an effort to pass
the word around that the crime rate needs to be reduced, and they have
now "allowed" the citizens to help in the effort of removing bad people
from the population, one way or another?
I don't buy the sometimes-suggested "halo effect" that allowing the
populace to be armed reduces violent crime in general. I don't care
for the NRA propaganda to that effect. The pivotal issue for me is
my liberty and right to defend myself and mine whether or not others
might care to do similarly for themselves and theirs.
But Don..the Halo effect DOES exist. I live in a Red County in the
middle of California. We have more CCW permit carriers than the ENTIRE
rest of the state. We do have a crime rate..but it consistes mostly of
minorities killing other minorities. Very very few whites kill each
other off, and we do have a decent stat rate where minoritiy criminals
are killed by whites in self defense. And even that homicide rate is
dropping as the minority criminals have evidently decided that attacking
a white may well get them killed.
I mention minorities and whites because while Im not a bigot..it IS a
very big fact of life in the US in some places. Shrug.
California..Southern California..the LA basin has a rapidly elevating
homicide rate this year. And the increase has ALL been between minority
victims and minority killers...ie Gang Crime.
http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/sbnow/...rising-tr.html
Since the growth of MS-13 in the major cities..there has been a
significant rise in minority homicides..committed by other minorities.
IE..Blacks are being murdered by both other blacks and by latinos in
rising rates.
White homicides, both commited by and victims of..are still falling...to
lows below those of the 1960s.
Frankly..its gang warfare between two minoritiy groups that is rising
the homicide rate. And given that MS-13 has few scruples and will kill
purely out of instinct...its going to be an interesting year or two.
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.