US soldier

John R. Lott Jr.

is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland

Philadelphia had 406 homicides in 2007, and, at 28 per 100,000 people, it also had the highest murder rate of any major city in the United States. No wonder Philadelphians want things done.

Recently, the city focused on a new tragedy, the murder of a 12-year police veteran and father of three, Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, by three bank robbers with long, violent criminal records.

To Gov. Rendell, Mayor Nutter, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, and freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, the solution is simple: more gun control. After pushes failed for new state and local laws, last Thursday these four politicians announced that the solution to Philadelphia's problems was re-enacting the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

They focused on the Chinese SKS rifle used to shoot Liczbinski five times. Rendell claims that "the only people who should have weapons like this is the police and the military." Some are calling the SKS an "assault weapon," although it is not so defined in any federal law and is not banned as such. And although the phrase assault weapon conjures up images of the rapid-fire machine guns used by the military, the SKS rifle is not a machine gun, instead functioning the same way as any semiautomatic hunting rifle. It fires a bullet similar to (indeed, slightly less powerful than) those fired from deer-hunting rifles, with the exact same rapidity.

This debate might make more sense if there were some evidence that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban lowered crime rates, but all the published academic studies by criminologists and economists find that neither the initial ban in 1994 nor its sun-setting in 2004 changed rates of murder or other violent crimes. Similarly, there is no evidence that state bans have mattered.

For example, a report for the National Institute of Justice by Christopher Koper, Daniel Woods and Jeffrey Roth at the University of Pennsylvania's Jerry Lee Center of Criminology studied the first nine years of the federal ban and found that "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence." They note that "the gun-ban provision targets a relatively small number of weapons based on outward features or accessories that have little to do with the weapons' operation."

Even gun control groups realize that the presence or absence of such laws make little difference. Before the federal law sunset, a representative for the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group, said that "if the existing assault-weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets." The center argued that the law involved only "minor changes in appearance."

Indeed, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people in 2003, the last full year before the law sunset. It was still 5.7 in 2006. Over the same period, the rate of violent crimes fell slightly. In the 43 states without their own assault-weapons bans, the murder rates fell, while they rose in the seven states with such bans. Violent-crime rates fell more quickly in the 43 without bans than in the seven states with them.

Yet it always seems easier for politicians to blame the lack of gun control rather than focusing on their own responsibilities. When Washington and Chicago experienced explosions in murder and violent crime after banning handguns, leaders there did not blame their bans, but rather they blamed the rest of the country that had not also adopted stricter regulations.

Ultimately, however, is it really surprising that Philadelphia's murder rates have risen while its arrest rates have fallen?

Former state House Speaker John Perzel proposed a different approach (an approach Rendell opposes) to fix Philadelphia's low and falling arrest rates. Perzel's solution? Help Philadelphia hire more police.

If politicians are unwilling to spend more money on police or to make the police force work more effectively, there is another solution: Encourage law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. One possibility is to eliminate fees for poor law-abiding people, those who are the most vulnerable victims of crime, to obtain concealed-handgun permits. If the government isn't going to protect people, why charge them for the opportunity to defend themselves? Research by David Mustard at the University of Georgia also found that more concealed-handgun permits reduce the number of criminals with guns and thus reduce violence against police officers.

Obsessing on gun control proposals distracts from doing what works. At some point it should be obvious to everyone, even politicians, that all the hype about "assault weapons" is just wrong.

Contrary to gun control wishes, government bans do not equal eradication.

This leads to the next premise upon which gun control is based: Criminals obey the law. Compliance with laws is based on the honor system. Governments expect citizens to follow the law because they honor the society in which they live. The problem is, criminals do not honor the law.

Gun control advocates seem to believe that a criminal who is going to cause harm will not do so, not because murder is illegal, but because the gun he is going to use for murder is illegal. Gun control advocates expect, indeed require, criminals to respect and obey the law for their policy to work.

The third premise of gun control is based on faith in the police. The gun control position is that only the police should have guns. A central tenet of this position is that ordinary citizens do not need a gun because the police are there to protect you.

It was clear on April 16, 2007, that the police were nowhere to be found for more than nine minutes. When split seconds count, the police are long minutes away.

Even though police often arrive after a crime has been committed, the gun control slant is that police are highly trained professionals and thus know how to stop a violent criminal better than a law-abiding citizen with a gun.

A citizen does not need to be concerned about infringing on a criminal's rights and detaining the perpetrator, as required of the police. A citizen only needs to be able to defend him or herself. Often, just the knowledge that a victim is armed is enough to dissuade a criminal from continuing an assault.

Any number of highly trained professionals could be useful, but when they are not at the scene of the crime for minutes, an average citizen with a gun can be an effective counter to a violent attack.

Even more duplicitous is that the faith-in-the-police premise takes an utterly contrary turn when making the argument that they will not know whom to shoot when responding.

First, this position is spurious, as it has continually been shown that the police arrive after a crime has been committed, including here at Tech. Second, if they really were highly trained, wouldn't they know that the ones who are not pointing their guns at the police are not the criminals? Third, if given the choice between the possibility of being shot by the highly trained professional while shooting in self-defense and the certainty of being shot by an armed assailant while unarmed, I will choose the former every time.

Some have argued that even the First Amendment is not an absolute right, noting that one cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. If we applied the same logic as the gun control argument, our mouths would be taped shut when we enter a theater because someone might yell "fire."

Those who would exercise their Second Amendment rights are subjected to prior restraint, and thus prevented from carrying their gun, because they might do something illegal with it.

Even with their flawed assumptions exposed, what is especially insidious is that gun control does not work. The results of their policies are abject failures. Whether in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, New York or Chicago, gun control does not work.

At Virginia Tech, gun control did not work.

Gun bans do not mean guns disappear. Criminals do not abide by the honor code. The police are not readily available to protect you. The Second Amendment declares an individual right to keep and bear arms.

These are truths that the gun control advocate disregards. Please consider the assumptions for their argument when deciding your own position.

Me and my wife add another member to the family. The dog was abused and she was skin and bones. We took him to get checked up and since she came back from the vet she is alot picker then when we first got he from the home earlyer that day. Is there anything we can add to her kibble that will help her get used to eating again. We feed her the good stuff and its 56 dollars a bag. We give her cooked chicken, beef chunks during the day trying to get her weight up and shes only eating the cooked meat.

My problem with breed specific legislation is that we are punishing certain breeds or classifications of dogs and their owners for behavior that we ignore in others. While it is true that a few of the game dog breeds have done an astonishing amount of damage when they do bite, statistically very few have ever bitten a person. Punishing the Pit Bull or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier and their owners for doing more damage than a Poodle is like banning all sledgehammers for one bent tack. The sledgehammer did more damage than a tack hammer, but it was in the hands of an idiot who didn't use it for its intended purpose. We find it horrifying when a person is maimed or killed by a dog, especially when the person is a child. However we rationalize our reaction to the incident, we must remain rational enough to place the responsibility for the tragedy directly on the people involved, not on the animal itself.

We have all been involed in the debate over weather illegals should be freed. Do the pro supporters even know what their doing to the country.They say their not hurting anyone but here are some facts. What do you think?

Illegal Immigration Costs California Over Ten Billion Annually

Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals. "Nothing could more starkly illustrate the very high costs of ‘cheap labor' than California's current situation," continued Stein. "A small number of powerful interests in the state reap the benefits, while the average native-born family in California gets handed a nearly $1,200 a year bill."

Now i may be stupid or ignorant but i realy dont care but how is it that i have 5 soildiers i personaly know that where in combat, wounded in combat and have been away from their familys for many years. They have given everything to their country but still cant aford to go to college. After their GI bill and faimly and vetrens support. How is it that know illegals in texas are going to college for FREE not a dime wasted in their pockets. For a person who has done nothing but break the law decived people and did everything to shame Legal immagrants who have fought to be here and right to call the US a HOME. That illegals can get EVERTHING from books to housing and the american tax payers footing the bill, but we cant help soldiers who HAVE earned their right to be here and have bleed for this country and died for this country cant aford to make it day by day because this government is treating our vets like a used whores.

IF you know the case Toledo v. Tellings where the OHIO SURPREME COURT RULED. The that the laws were unconstitutional. The judge said in his ruling

The court of appeals also held that the laws violated Tellings’s

rights to equal protection and substantive due process because, once the trial court had determined that the American Pit Bull terrier was not inherently dangerous,

the laws were not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. The court of appeals stated that the evidence presented at the trial court had disproved the presumption that pit bulls are inherently dangerous. Finally, the court of appeals held that the three laws were unconstitutional because they were void for vagueness. The court of appeals stated that it was “troubled by the lack of an exact statutory definition of ‘pit

bull’” and the “highly subjective nature of the identification process.” http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/20...

My phone fryed on me this moring making me late and thinking about getting the LG LX160. I not looking for anything major just soming that makes good calls and texting. My question is to anyone who has used or owns one, what do they like about it or dislike it.

SPECIAL REPORT: Judge Reminds PETA That Dognapping Is A Felony

Posted On June 27, 2007

Yesterday, the latest People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) employee to run afoul of the law made her get-out-of-jail-free arguments before a Virginia judge. It didn’t go too well. At the end of a 90-minute “probable cause” hearing in the aptly named town of Courtland, Virginia, PETA worker Andrea Florence Benoit stood charged with the October 2006 felony theft of a hunting dog. And we learned a great deal more about this disturbing case, and just how far PETA will go to substitute its judgment for everyone else’s.

Before the hearing even began, the prosecutor declared that he wouldn’t pursue petty larceny charges related to a radio-tracking collar Benoit removed from the dog before she put it in a PETA-owned van. Benoit’s lawyer now admits that she took the collar off, but tossed it by the side of the road.

I have been fighting against BSL against mine and other pit bulls. If your not familiar with it think of it as another racial law but against dogs.no one has told me think of the videos. I only made a few videos so i still getting the hang of it thanks for all input.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR6-8dhN48A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8hUNd-UbXM

A Tampa florida man made a "how to" book get their names off the sex offenders list. For 99 dollars he would send you a book to explain how to get real new SSN number driver license and so on, so they can have a new life. It was on fox news this morning and made me sick to my stomach. His calles himself agent black. I try and find a link for it,it was just on. What do you all think about it.

They personally make me sick, I would have no problem with them getting no less then a needle the first time. People can say they have their rights but i would also remind them of that child or children that person has hurt or killed. That child will never trust a person the same way and that they will be scared for life. I say kill every fuc$ing one of them all, they dont have a right to live after take a childs innocents like they have. If you too offend that is moraly wroung to do that well put the mofoer in a pink jump suit and send his/her *** to prision in gernal pop. And let the people in prision return the favor and deal with that scum.

I would love to see him destroyed for what he did, it makes it so much harder for real pit bull owners to fight BSL and this retard needs to go to prison for what he did. There is no if he did it? He fuc$ing did it, there is so much evidence against him. My personal thoughts I think he needs to go through what this a $ $ hole put those poor dogs through. I dont want to hear that all pitbulls are mean and BS like that,if you have never been around a pitbull or owned one you will never truly know how good of dogs they can be.ANY dog can be made mean. Here are some stats.

EVERY YEAR IN USA

440,000 people die from cigarattes

40,000 people die in car accidents

38,000 children die from gunshots

2,000 children are killed by their own parents

3 people year die from pit bulls

The 3 pits that have killed are ones whom where involved in dog fighting rings.

wheres the REAL epicdemic lie

What is your thoughs of this true RETARD.I would hope he gets the book thrown at him.

I try this a third time, quit twisting my words around and answer the question with maturely. My question is this, why is it that people who dont want illegals in this country are hated on by pro-illegals and are called raciest because of their views. Nothing about our views are raciest but all we want is for them to be come legal and qute stealing from our americans hard earned money. They dont pay taxes and feel they have a right to a country, they have not payed a single legal dime to be here. If they dont get their way they cry to the ACLU and sue the very same people they steal taxes from. It makes me mad becase those who have fought to become legal dont have the respect they deserve becase they have work with the system here and other dont. People make the argument that they do jobs that we wont,well if owners would pay the correct wage for US workers to do the job and do the right thing. Any person looking for a job to support their family will do the work. PERIOD

Illegals Killing Americans Faster than Terrorists

Layla Gonzalez at The Hill Chronicle has written a post in which she claims that illegal aliens kill more Americans on average every day than are killed in action in Iraq:

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. If those numbers are correct, it equates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That is 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

If you have ever spent more than two weeks watching the local evening news in Houston (where I grew up), this would come as no surprise to you (except the pro-open borders local MSM in Houston would never use the denigrating term “illegal”; they prefer “undocumented” or “Mexican national”).

And it’s not just murder being pepetrated by our unwanted and univited intruders:

Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000

I hoping to be out this December from the army and I am wounder what papers and Docs do I kneed to get into the police academy's second question i have a lot of special weapons training and explosives will i still have to do that part of the course.Police officers or people currently in training plz.

I am getting alot back in taxes this year and will be buying a xbox 360 pro with the extra cooling system.I am getting gears for war for sure,what other games are realy good on the system.