Re: New Concealed Weapons Law Approved by CongressNov 20th, 2011
You really seems to be clutching at straws in your reply. Let's deal with a few of you points one at a time.Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
Why is Jamaica a developing nation? Why is any colonial nation populated by ex-slaves a developing nation? I'm not sure where you got the idea Jamaica was populated by Europeans - I suggest you review your colonial history. Just to make that easier I have provided a link to the Wikipedia article on Jamaica. You might be particularly interested in the ethnic origins section. Jamaica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your argument about Texas cities being close to Mexico falls flat against your example of Detroit. It seems to me that Detroit is nowhere near the Mexican border. And in any case if gun ownership was even remotely effective in deterring crime anywhere it should certainly be effective in gun-crazy Texas. Can you explain why high levels of gun ownership in Texas seems to have had no effect on the crime rate? BTW Houston and Dallas are not exactly bordertowns.
And no - I am not looking for simple answers to complex issues, quite the reverse in fact. f you check though my posts regarding crime and firearms you will note that I am well aware of the many causes that lead to a high crime rate. In fact it is your assertion that arming citizens is the answer to the crime rate in the US that is a simple answer to a complex...
If you admit that population density affects crime then you'll know why Australia and New Zealand have low crime rates. However, since Australia banned most firearms, the crime rate hasn't really changed, (unless you talk to the people there, they'll tell you its gotten worse). BTW, Australia and NZ still get a winter though it's more like a Vancouver winter. Rates of random violent, (and property) crime still rise with temperature, I'll take the word of police and criminologists and the British Jounal of Criminology over yours.
So what is your point regarding urbanized ghettos having a higher crime rate? That's true anywhere, there's no simple fix that, and any comparisons of the US to other countries is difficult because of its history, geographic size, political climate, cultural diversity, to name a few things that make it rather unique.
As far as high levels of "legal" firearm ownership not deterring crime, no evidence that limits or bans on firearm ownership deterring crime stands up to scrutiny. In fact, the reason the NAZI's never invaded Switzerland was they believed that every citizen was armed, (France was quite accomodating by having a firearms registry). The same reason the Japanese used for never attempting a mainland invasion of the US. The fates of unarmed citizenry have been much worse. Criminals don't come with name tags, they can be the guy on the street or in your home looking for a score, or go by the name of Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe. Personal security is a personal responsibility, and has been a right in the English world since before the English Bill of Rights. In a free society, the burden of proof lies with the lawmakers to demonstrate legislation is just and not arbitrary when it restricts liberty. Sadly, we are becoming less and less free.