Nick wrote on Apr 19, 2008 9:06 PM:Imagine that, another ant-gun letter by Joseph Grant with his lopside, one-sided, mis-statement of gun statistics, and another Pro-Palestinian letter from Chris Pulse.
At least the loonies are consistent. What's next, the patients running the asylum?
Oh yean, that's right, Hillary and Obama are running for President and don't agree with our 2nd Amendment rights. Yep, I watched their little dance and double talk on the issue in the last debate.
Then we have President Carter going to have a little talk with Hamas.
I guess the loonies are taking over the asylum.

Nick wrote on Apr 19, 2008 9:27 PM:As I have stated in the past Joseph Grant, you need to do your homework better.
(1) A study by Kleck & Gertz determined that there are 2.5 Million Defensive Gun Uses a year. This translates to 1 DGU every 13 seconds somewhere in American
[Source: Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, from The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995]
(2) Now compare that with the fact that a fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United States only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under, it's less than one a day -- but still enough for the news media to have a case to tell you about in every day's edition.
[Source: National Safety Council]
And a criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United States about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities are not completely innocent victims but themselves have criminal records.
[Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the Chicago Police Department]
Mr. Grant just echoes the same baloney that the biased media uses by only shining the light on one side of the gun issue day-in and day-out.
I just love it when the anti-gun nuts use their own biased opinion on a subject and not the real facts.
I think Joseph Grant might be a farmer from the amount of manure he is always shoveling.

Nick wrote on Apr 19, 2008 9:37 PM:President Carter better hurry up, Hamas has carried out 5 seperate attacks this week Killing a dozen Israeli soldiers and wounding as many. You know, the usual upstanding warfare that they use, suicide bombers, traps and sneak and run attacks.
Of course, this kind of cowardly, murderous warfare will be applauded by Chris Pulse and the rest of his ilk. Not to mention the usual bottom feeders that will no doubt espouse the great and noble cause of the Palestian people as soon as they read my post and blame all Israelis and Zionists for all the trouble in the world.
You know, Muslims and Arabs are a peace loving people, they would never murder innocent women and children without provacation......righttttttttt. It's never the Muslims fault...LMAO.

GFN wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:13 PM:Thanks to all who answered my question about Jimmy Carter talking with Hamas. I truly have no agenda, but I do have the feelings and beliefs I grew up with...some of which have changed over the years and some of which probably never will. I apoligize for not responding earlier but nothing was posted for hours and I had to go to a wedding. It was a great affair, a bride and groom truly in love, and I will respond asap. Thanks again to you all.

sdraoul wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:25 PM:Mark Van Aelstyn of Poway needs some lessons in American government and history and in Mexican government and history.

We are two different countries with two different histories, two different constitutions and two different sets of laws based on those constitutions.

Those of us who criticize silly and illegal positions by ignorant Americans do so as Americans.

For example, we realize that Mexico is a different country and does things its way. If they treated Americans badly we would protest, but they don't usually.

When Americans demand that Americans be treated like animals we protest. When Americans are subject to illegal sweeps by badge wearers and do so at the instigation of other Americans we protest.

When Americans demand troops on the border we protest because that's against the law, a law passed 133 years ago by those whos aved this coutnry from being run by slave owners.

The law prohibits National Guard, for example, from doing anything but driving trucks, sweeping floors or observing They can't arrest anyonme. That's the law.

When Americans demand that the civil rights and liberties of 45 million Americans in order to satisfy the paranoia of a handful of unAmericans, we protest.

So, don't bother to point fingers at Mexicans, obey the Constitution.

It protects illegal aliens just as it protects Americans in Poway. It does so through the 14th Amendment guaranteeing "equal protection" of all people in the USA and its territories.

That means "All" people.

Chris to Nick wrote on Apr 19, 2008 10:42 PM:Oh, how you are so quick to trash the attacks on Israel, and call them cowardly. First of all how do you know it was Hamas. You know there are people that Hamas doesn't control. But I concider it more cowardly when we drop bombs and send in missles to a country that can't fight back like we do in Iraq. So a suicide bomber is a coward (even though he is sacraficing his own life) but someone who flies an aircraft thousands of feet above the country and drops bombs on innocent and unarmed people is a hero. Got it. What about those who sit on ships hundreds of miles away and sends in missles. I guess they are heros too. OH THE HYPOCRACY. My initial impression of yor has changed drastically and now I place you in the catagory of Asteroid, sdraoul and esteban.

Ron wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:47 AM:Yeah, no kidding.. Jim Stuart!
What I suspect is we still have this very small and whining group of Democrats who are just plain miserable over Francine "You Don't Need Paper's for Voting" Busby.
While I don't agree with earmarks in general, $286,000 for County Health Services seems a bit of a stretch, even for Democrats with a chip on their shoulder about Bilbray.
Afterall, are these not the same people decrying our healthcare system? At least the money was for something good, like new medical equipment.
We could have a Senator like Hillary Clinton who wanted a million bucks for a Woodstock museum.
And I also would like to thank Mr. Bilbray for getting the county the funds to improve our public health department. And I agree, to characterize this as earmark abuse is a pathetic attempt to distort Mr. Bilbray's record.
Compared with most requests I've seen, Brian Bilbray's request for this earmark is well worth it.
Or would you have our County doctors working on patients with out of date equipment?

Alf wrote on Apr 20, 2008 6:03 AM:The letter from Mike Bullock is missing the point. If a current road is sufficient to handle ONLY the current amount of vehicles and you ADD more houses, which means more vehicles, which forces the widening or expansion of the road, it is the ones who force the improvement(s) that should pay for it through a one-time fee. Once the improvement(s) are made, then the maintenance should be paid by everyone. The improvement(s) would not be needed if the new houses were not built, so it is up to the ones that make the need to improve to pay the price. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Apr 20, 2008 6:24 AM:As usual, "sdraoul" at 10:25PM makes up his own "facts" when he says "The law prohibits National Guard, for example, from doing anything but driving trucks, sweeping floors or observing They can't arrest anyonme. That's the law.". The following quotes are from the "About" page of the National Guard Website - "following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad" AND "Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the states units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing to the nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend the United States and its interests, all over the globe." ONLY drive trucks, sweep floors and observe, Hogwash! Regards, Alf.

Raving wrote on Apr 20, 2008 6:56 AM:Looks like Nick's spaghetti has finally slid off his plate. I know it's hard to see the Old Guard passing, but get a grip. No one's gonna take away your guns, sheesh.

You're kidding, right? wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:01 AM:Nick, I know you are passionate about the gun issue and it’s refreshing to see someone use statistics to back up their claims. However, I did a little homework myself, I read the report by Kleck & Gertz. From a link on the pro-gun web page where you obviously cut and pasted the bulk of your comments from. The asides, particularly the one about the news media having a case to tell about in every day’s edition, almost sounded original. But at least you sourced them.
What you failed to mention was that this report was not based on any actual crime statistics but on a TELEPHONE POLL. What I found most interesting was the methodology. They called 4,977 households; they asked did anyone in your household use a gun for defense within the past five years. 222 out of those 4,977 answered yes and were asked follow up questions to determine whether it was against a person, an assault, burglary or robbery. They asked if the person felt they “almost certainly” saved a life by doing so. 15.7% said yes. That would be 34 people.
And they extrapolate from this that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses and 39,250 lives saved per year. I could just be a bit cynical but I’d say some of those 222 gun owners might be a little less than objective and have an exaggerated view of what constitutes self-defense, what constitutes danger and what constitutes saving a life. Like Officer Frank White for example, who shot an unarmed woman and an 8-year-old boy because they traded paint in a parking lot.
Basing your pro gun argument (No. 1 on your list) on telephone interviews with 222 gun owners. Interesting. It’s like trying to find out how many Americans believe in God by asking only those who go to church.

Karl wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:12 AM:In response to James Buck, John McCain has proposed to reduce or eliminate Federal taxes on fuel this summer.

Just Curious wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:16 AM:How can Sunday morning comics ever hope to compete with posts from our own legal scholar, sdraoul? Today's rant includes such gems as "...illegal sweeps by badge wearers..." and the opinion that protecting our borders is unconstitutional.

Just curious, is this the same constitution that George W. Bush refered to as a "goddamned piece of paper", and his puppet Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, dismissed as "an outdated document"?

Karl wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:17 AM:I could not have said it better Robert Green, especially "What the country needs, and will get in 2008, is a humiliating defeat by the Democrats as well we should!"

Karl wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:22 AM:"Chris to Nick @ 10:42 PM:" I feel like a kid again playing a game where the captain chooses sides. While Chris is picking the other team I say "pick me, pick me"

El Guero wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:31 AM:Here we go again. Someone writes something critical about Mexico and sdraoul insists we all need another history lesson. But what would the lesson be? That Mexico is one of the most corrupt countries of the world? We already know that. That the government of Mexico—which is to say the ultra-wealthy ruling elite— don't really care about poverty in their own country and the millions of their so-called countrymen who must endure it? That's pretty evident as well. So what "history" about Mexico would we need to know so we wouldn't "point fingers at Mexicans"? sdraoul is right that "Mexico is a different country and does things its way." But the fact that Mexico does things "its way" is the core of the problem, because Mexico's way is to ignore poverty and encourage Mexicans to leave the country to avoid the pressure for social and economic change. And once in the United States, Mexico's social and economic cast-offs give the Mexican government the opportunity to pose as champions of human rights. Look up hypocrisy in the dictionary and you'll find a picture of Mexico...right next to a picture of raoul.

Alf wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:45 AM:In her letter, Dolores Welty asks "What kind of people are we?". I don't know about the "we" part, but a vast majority (over 70 percent and growing) of the American People are more acutely aware by the day of just how much GWB has damaged them, what's left of their Constitutional Rights, our American Troops, our economy, our credibility as a nation and the rest of the world and we ashamed of what we have done under the direction of GWB. Let's not forget our gutless Legislature and, especially, the partisan Republicans who follow in lockstep with GWB rather than use common sense or follow the will of over 70 percent of Americans who want us the heck out of Iraq. "What kind of people are we?" Some are slow learners, it would seem. Regards, Alf.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:52 AM:To Your Kidding Right: Good on you for doing some research as well. As far as extrapalation is concerned, almost all studies do it, that is the only way to come up with figures for the whole Country. It's not perfect, but it's the best they have. Even the Government, the Census Bureau, and National Voting Polers extrapolate their poles to arrive at their figures for the surveys they take. I just had a lady from the Census Bureau here polling me the other day. Why is it OK with you that all the other studies we use in this Country use extrpolation to arrive at their #'s, but since it's a study on firearms, it's bogus? Hmmmmm.....
Again, I applaud you for doing some digging on your own, but there are at least a dozen studies that have been done on this subject and the results are pretty impressive. I would be more than happy to share the info from the other studies with you and let you check them out yourself. Seeing as how you sound intelligent enough to do the research and actually make an unbiased and rational decision based on the facts.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:59 AM:Oh "Chris", quit your whining. I knew you would be the first to jump at my post. And just as I thought, you do not condemn the cowardly murders of innocent woman and children by Hamas, nope, you justify it and change the subject to "well America bombs innocent people", so that makes everything hunkey dorey...LOL.
The thing that you never seem to get, and I have stated MANY times in the past, is that The U.S. DOES NOT target innocent women and children, they go after Military targets(and I use that term loosely, because terrorists don't really follow any military code). It just so happens that the cowardly terrorists you love to stand up for, are always dressing like civilians and hiding among innocent women and children. That way, they have a small sense of protection and when the innocents are killed, they get to pull on the emotional heartstrings of people like you.
That's a big difference "Chris", and only cowards hind behind innocent women and children to fight a war!

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:04 AM:To Raving: Tell that line to my dead ancestors that the Government disarmed and marched on a little thing called the Trail of Tears.
Be very, very careful of people who only say "we don't want your guns, we just want to make it really hard for you to have them".
Criminals don't care about laws, or they wouldn't be doing crimes. Take away guns from law abiding citizens, and only criminals and cops will have them.
That makes me far more nervous than the way it is now.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:09 AM:"Karl", pick me, pick me....LOL. Just kidding.
McCain wants to eliminate The Fed tax on fuel, but that won't do much when you consider the State of California gets 50 cents a gallon and the Fed only gets 24 cents a gallon.
I say we eliminate the State tax too. It's not like The State is using it for it's intended purpose of fixing and improving our roads. Nope, they have taken that money and spent it elsewhere with NO intent of paying it back. Of course, the Great Arnold is counting on Indian Gaming Revenues to help put us back in the black.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:31 AM:To Your Kidding Right: I have a little tidbit for you, since you have a problem with the survey. This from one of the Country's leading Criminologist and and anti-gun supporter:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing.
Well, if Marvin Wolfgang can't find fault with the study, I certainly can't either.
[Source: Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995]
Cheers, Nick.

Jim wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:47 AM:Reading sdraoul's rant du jour, where, once again, he jumps on the opportunity to "...criticize silly and illegal positions by ignorant Americans...", I got to wondering: How does he avoid bumping into things with his head stuck where it is?

Mike wrote on Apr 20, 2008 11:08 AM:sdraoul contends that the 14th amendment "...protects illegal aliens just as it protects Americans..."?

Actually, the 14th amendment protects: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

Nick's guns wrote on Apr 20, 2008 11:15 AM:So lemme get this straight, Nick. If there are more defensive use of guns than there are accidental shootings, that's some kind of argument that guns are, on the balance, good? Huh?

Absolutely shameful wrote on Apr 20, 2008 11:21 AM:The NY Times published some interesting statistics today. Since 1980, oil consumption by the US has risen 21%. In one or two nations, during this time, it held about even. Then is a list of many nations which have significantly DECREASED their consumption over the same period. Then we have the fuel consumption requirements on new cars. In Japan and the EU, it's more than 40 mpg, in the US, it's in the low 20's. The US uses 25% of the world's oil. "Why do they hate us?"...you have to ask? Maybe now that commercials showing Pelosi and Gingrich in full agreement about global warming, more Americans might start giving up the obnoxious idea that somehow we are entitled to use as much as we wish. Now that all three presidential candidates have agreed about global warming, maybe Americans who want to believe it's all about Al Gore will finally wake up or at least be quiet.

Chris to Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 11:33 AM:You accuse me of talking about what the US does but ignore what Hamas (again how do you know it is Hamas)does. What about you. You continue to trash the muslims but never do you talk about the attrocities we commit. So when you talk about what we do at the same time you talk about the Muslims then maybe I will talk about the Muslims when I talk about the US. But I won't hold my breath.

Chris to Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 11:36 AM:You come out here and trash Chris Pulse's letter but you have no scholarship to back up your claim. But as I said you don't know beans about history but can only make sarcastic remarks about someone who does.

Chris to Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 11:40 AM:I just love how you condone our killing of innocent people by saying that we dont target them. Well what do you think is going to happen when we drop all these high explosives in a heavily populated civilian area. Maybe we don't target civilians but we don't care how many we kill ether.

Van Aelstyn is right... wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:08 PM:This letter says it all. It expresses the full hypocricy of the illegal alien lobby and their bullying and guilt tripping lobbying against kind and generous Americans. Why don't these hate America, hate Americans lobbyists for the masses of law breaking illegal aliens violating our people and laws, go to Mexico and spew their venom against the source of all this misery, the Mexican authorities? We're sick and tired of listening to their hate speech against generous Americans. Thank you Mark for exposing this double standard. RIP the soul of yound Jamiel Shaw, the 17 yr old high school student gunned down by another illegal alien and protected by L.A.'s corrupt Special Order 40 and by L.A.'s corrupt Mayor and politicans. Sickening!

El Guero wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:08 PM:To Jim (@ 9:47): I'm with you. Can't we vote him off the island or something?

Backcountry wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:18 PM:We will never know how many crimes WERE NOT committed because the criminal thought twice about attacking someone who MIGHT BE ARMED. This is why gun ownership is considered a DETERNT TO CRIME. Of course when we let the liberals take the guns away from law-abiding citizens, thus denying them their constitutional right of self-defense then only the criminals will have guns. But we don't want to confuse liberals with logic and truth, that's why we need to be vigilant and act to defend our rithts of gun ownership and the right to defend ourselves.

GFN wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:20 PM:Alf, El Guero, Jim, and Just Curious all highlight the flaw in SDRAUL'S position; he's intractable. There are no amount of facts, figures, concepts, reasons, or justifications that will alter his position, which is based on stubbornness. However, I do remember one day when SD was asked to state his solution to the undocumented immigration situation(that was nice) by Reardon, I believe. I don't know that SDRAOUL did respond to that or not, but I would appreciate if he did, again if necessary. There has to be some movement-even a truce, if you will, and the sooner the better. I do believe someone as passionate as SD would have a solution ready to go and we could-civilly, of course-debate it and maybe move towards the acceptance of a plan we could all live with. I do believe this is one of the advantages of the blog, eh?

Cool logic, backcountry wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:37 PM:So here we are, the one "armed" nation, and for all the deterrance, our crime rate is much higher than any country in Europe or Asia. LOL Conservative logic at its best...all facts fit the predetermined outcome. Like Bush: less violence? The surge is working! More violence? The surge is working! Great "minds" think alike. d

Alf wrote on Apr 20, 2008 12:57 PM:Well, "Cool logic, backcountry" at 12:37PM as well as "Backcountry" at 12:18PM, we may be one-armed nation, but the question that should be asked has not yet been asked. That question is - What, if any, is the correlation between crime and legal gun ownership on a local level? I had heard that the more armed the citizenry IN A GIVEN AREA, the fewer crimes IN THAT AREA and I don't have any facts to prove OR disprove that claim. Help me out here, do either of you have any data one way or the other? Thanks in advance. Regards, Alf.

Alf wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:05 PM:One more thing "Cool logic, backcountry" at 12:37PM. Isn't the Washington D.C. crime rate very high and isn't Washington D.C. the city that has a ban on handguns, the challenge of which is currently in the United States Supreme Court and is based on the Second Amendment? Regards, Alf.

El Guero wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:14 PM:To GFN: sdraoul DOES have a solution to the undocumented immigration situation: Amnesty. Plus a massive guest-worker program that offers green cards to whomever wants to come here. There was a poll taken in Mexico last year, I think it was, that found that 40% of Mexicans would come to the U.S.—legally or illegally—if they got the chance. On top of the 10% to 15% of the population of Mexico that already resides here, over half of the population of Mexico would live here if sdraoul and the would-be migrants had their way. A solution to the illegal immigration problem on sdraoul's terms is the last thing we need to debate. The simple truth is there is no "win-win" resolultion; You'll likely get some flexibility from the "restrictionist" side on an issue such as guest workers, but there always will be people who want desperately to come who will be left out. Therefore, I'm sure, you won't get any compromise from the other side because, as we've seen countless times before, they won't be satisfied unless EVERY illegal immigrant is granted amnesty and EVERY would-be migrant has an opportunity to come.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:18 PM:You seriously keep me laughing "Chris". First of all, I have a degree in Poli Sci from San Diego State, I would consider that an education.
As usual, you don't get it, but you prove my point, day-in and day-out.
Why do we drop bombs in populated areas? Because that's where the terrorists like to hide. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE COWARDS! Is it really that hard to grasp for you? I know, your blinding hatred of this Country and our Government only lets you see one side of the issues. Most would that to be considered close minded and ignorant "Chris". You don't see our Military hiding amongst innocent civilians(and I use that term loosely as well, because these "innocent Palestinians" that you are ranting about all the time are just as guilty as the terrorists). They let the terrorists hide amongst them because they condone the cowardly acts of Hamas and the suicide bombers.
Definatley don't hold your breath "Chris", for I will be bad mouthing terrorists and Palestinians as long as you are bad mouthing the good ole' U.S. of A.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:19 PM:So what's your point "Nick's Guns" ? Do you actually have one? If so, share your wonderful insight with the rest of us.

to Alf wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:26 PM:We've had this discussion about the DC crime rate before. It's a good question you ask, but I'd have to see DC's rate compared to other cities that were similar. New York City, for example, has had a handgun ban forever, and its crime rate has been high, and its crime rate has been low. So we know the matter is not simple. Outside of dramatic cases like cities with outright bans on handguns, I can't imagine how the criminal population could possibly know which areas are more or less armed than others. Can you? Also, I wouldn't dismiss the very clear data that the US, with the most guns, does have the highest crime rate. Of course the crime rate is a result of very many things, but if you are willing to look at it locally as well as in gigantic cities, you have to accept the national data for what it is as well. Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine was a rather interesting look at American violence, and was not a knee jerk, simple look, either. He notes, for example, that Detroit and (what's the name of the city?) a corresponding city a few miles away in Canada both have easy gun access, but only one has a high crime rate. So it ain't just guns. But I have to wonder: when lots of Americans say the answer to violent crime is more violence via civilian gun use, there is something there that contributes to an understanding of our violent nature as a country. Our foreign policy is similarly motivated.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:27 PM:To "Cool Logic, Backcountry": As my good buddy "Alf" has pointed out, restrictive gun laws HAVE NO DETERRENT ON CRIME. Great Britain is in the same boat as Washington D.C. The British have stripped it's citizens of the laws and meant to protect themselves and now the crime in that Country is beyond rampant.
Considering that the sentence for B&E(even with a lengthy convictions record) in Britain is usually 3 years with only half that time served, criminals aren't that scared. Homeowners who defend themselves IN THEIR HOME have been sentenced to more time than the burglars. Oh yeah, Britain is a great example.

Is current policy effective in reducing crime and protecting the public? Burglars realize current law leaves householders at a grave disadvantage and have acted accordingly. In 2003-2004 51 percent of the 402,333 domestic burglaries recorded in England and Wales took place while someone was home. In some 48,000 of these break-ins the intruder used or threatened violence. By contrast, in America where burglars rightly fear armed homeowners, only 13% of break-ins occur while someone is home and the level of burglary is less than half the English rate. What movable is worth dying for? Still the government insists that things are getting better, that "recorded burglary" in London, despite public perceptions, is at a 29 year-low. Never mind that levels of violent crime throughout England and Wales soared by 11 per cent in the second quarter of 2004, and gun crime by 3 percent.

Nick's guns wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:29 PM:My point was simple: the argument that all the accidental gun deaths and injuries is somehow worth it if there are more deaths and injuries dealt to criminals by gun owners is absurd. What my having weapons of my own has to do with this, I have no idea.

But Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:34 PM:the "terrorists" that you talk about ARE civilians. They aren't usually HIDING among civilians, they just live there. Good grief. You seem to have no ability whatsoever to imagine what it's like to be someone else, I guess. You think that everyone in the world should just logically agree with everything the US government does and says, and if they don't, they're either crazy or evil. Can you not imagine that a Palestinian in Gaza or the West Bank might have a valid reason to resent Israel? That they might feel it right to be willing to fight with whatever they have to get their land back? Isn't that exactly what you would do in their shoes? Isn't this exact behavior heroic, in your view, if the enemy happens to be, say, Castro's regime or Putin's? My gosh, are you that narrowminded and dense? Is it possible?

Cheers to you too, Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:37 PM:I read the Wolfgang testimonial earlier this morning. Believe me, I read all of the related material. My problem with your citation of the study was that it came across as some sort of verifiable, statistical proof of 2.5 million documented defensive gun uses a year. It was not. And most importantly in my mind at least, it did not address any specific definition of a defensive gun use. It left it up to the respondent to define that for themselves. And like I said earlier, that is completely subjective.
Say a homeless person is wading through someone’s trash looking for recyclables. They grab their gun and go out to scare him off. Is that a defensive gun use? To some it would be considered as such.
I do not have a problem with you having a gun in your house for protection. You’ve related before how you keep your handgun in that high-tech fingerprint access lockbox and your long guns in a gun cabinet. But you must admit there are way too many irresponsible gun owners out there. That’s where the problem lies, what do we do about them?
Lastly, I realize extrapolation is necessary in polling data. But we do actually vote on the first Tuesday in November. We do not put somebody in the White House based on the latest daily Gallup tracking poll.

C'mon Alf wrote on Apr 20, 2008 1:46 PM:You can do better than that. It's because if you drive or walk one mile outside of D.C. you can buy a gun easily almost anywhere. Some of the loosest gun laws in the country are in the counties that surround D.C.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 2:28 PM:So, "Nicks Guns" seems to think that showing that people using firearms to defend themselves is some kind of a moot point when comparing it to accidental and violent gun use. Not true! What is the purpose of Joseph Grants letters? To show how bad and awful guns are and that they don't serve any real purpose. Why are the anti-gun crowd always ranting about the lives lost to gun violence? To create fear in those that don't know both sides of the issue and make it seem like guns kill people.
Guess what? Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
There is a pervasive bias when it comes to media reporting on firearms and the facts used by the anti-gun nuts. They like to shine the light only on their own side of the issue and would rather not have people know the whole truth, just the part that fits their own personal agenda.
That, I have a problem with and will do my best to dispell the myths.

Howdy pardner wrote on Apr 20, 2008 2:36 PM:I believe the founders intended the second amendment to allow people to have guns. Mostly because in all the years after it’s adoption the federal government never tried to take them away. I also know that in the old west there were ordinances that banned guns within city limits because the sheriffs knew from experience that if everybody was running around town with guns somebody was bound to get shot. Both of these things are true today. And that’s the dichotomy we face.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 2:40 PM:Well. "Cheers to you to Nick", I agree with your point that there are a lot of people who don't properly safeguard their guns. I believe that all owners of handguns be required to take a safety & firearms class before being able to purchase a firearm. It's kind of strange, you have to take a class to get your hunting license to show you have the skills to safely handle your firearm, but not one for the purchase for said weapon. I think that would be a good start.
Some folks, like myself, grew up with Military parents or Police in their family and were taught by them at home. My father was an instructor for the Marine Corps Pistol/Rifle Team and so I was taught at a young age.
I also think that children should be taught the dangers of guns and the safe handling when they are of age. In my house, for instance, when my children play with squirt guns and other toy guns, the same rules that apply to real guns apply to the toy guns. They don't understand that those very rules could possibly save their life or a friends if they happen to be at a friends house whose parent is one of the unsafe ones you spoke of and a child brings out "Daddy's Gun" to show off. Many of these childhood tragedies could have been avoided if the owners were properly educated or had taken the time to educate their children.
Go figure, we teach our children about the dangers of fire, poison, cars and streets, knives and the kitchen, and even stranger danger, but for some reason parents won't talk to their kids about guns.
I think these 2 suggestions would be a good start. What do you think?
Cheers, Nick.

Oh yeah wrote on Apr 20, 2008 2:54 PM:As far as it goes, it's true guns don't kill people, but people with guns kill lots of people, too often a whole lot at one time.

Chris to Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 3:46 PM:I guess the fact that you have a college degree proves that higher education is just a total waste of our money. So if the oceanside Police go into an area that is full of gang bangers and is looking for someone then they have the right to burn down the whole town. As I said your blogs prove that a college degree doesn't mean you are educated. For the most part we are wasting our money on this higher education.

But Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 3:53 PM:I've always been rather impressed with the fact that most police officers and departments and spokespeople tend not to support gun rights. I've heard many policemen talk about how often a criminal shoots a victim with the victim's own gun, so that a crime in progress that was not violent became so when the victim drew a weapon. You are right, though, that there are two sides to this. Although not raised with guns myself, I am not a knee-jerk gun-banner. I would be if we were a nation without a history of gun-love or a 2nd amendment. But gunlove is so much a part of the American psyche, or at least the psyches of so many Americans, that I don't think there is much hope in a simple ban. We love our guns too much, they are too tied to our recreation, to our fantasies about ourselves and out past. I think we're just stuck with it, the good and the bad. Guns don't kill people, fantasies do. The fantasies of the criminals and the fantasies of the self-appointed heroes. Bang bang.

Cheers wrote on Apr 20, 2008 5:09 PM:Well said, Nick. You are so misunderstood by some folks around here. Funny how a rational discussion (and we've had them before) can bring about understanding and finding common ground. Too bad most times it's all about fighting fire with fire.

Nick's guns wrote on Apr 20, 2008 5:38 PM:Count me among the agreeing folks today. Since no one would ever succeed in banning guns in the good old USA, I agree with Nick that safety training should be required, as with driving. As with driving, it won't stop the idiots, but it will help. If we insist on being the most violent nation in the "civilized" world, anything we can do to reduce some of the most unnecessary violence is great in my book.

sdraoul wrote on Apr 20, 2008 5:48 PM:First, Alf can’t read. I said it was against the law to put troops on the border to enforce civilian laws. The national Guard can’t do anything on the border but watch, sweep floors and drive trucks; it can’t arrest anyone for crossing the border illegally.

As for El Guero’s hate-Mexico post, Mexico ahs chopped poverty by 20 percent under Presidents Fox and Calderon. Baja California has less poverty than the USA.

According to the World Bank, Mexico’s economy has grown from 17th largest in the world to number 11 in recent years.

And, yes, I did outline my over-all solution to the illegal alien problem but it was late at night and most didn’t see it.

First, the word amnesty is not a bad word and anyone who thinks so doesn’t understand that our whole criminal justice system is designed around amnesty not prison for major cases. Ask any District or U.S. Attorney. But, amnesty is not what I support and anyoen who says I do is nuts.

A work permit program eligible to anyone who applies at American Consulates in Mexico and are investigated for criminal pasts and are hired by American employers through the department of Labor will apply to those already here who apply at American Consulates and have a job already.

A work permit program by itself eliminates the vast majority of illegal entrants because why would they come illegally if they can come legally?

Then, all working people in the USA, regardless of legality, will have to produce either an American passport or Green Card or work permit and a tamper proof Social Security card that can only be issued to people with an American passport, Green Card or work permit.

Problem solved; fire the Border Patrol.

Reardon wrote on Apr 20, 2008 6:33 PM:Alf: The counter-argument is always that you can step 5 feet out of Detroit, or Washington, and buy a gun. Well the entire country of Mexico has STRONG gun bans, and you can read daily how well THAT is going! Back when I went to TJ for Jai Lai I had to check my fully licensed (CCW -- I'll e-mail you a copy because most of what I say is questioned) weapons at the border in a lock box. I'll take anti-gun folks seriously when they place, "THIS HOME HAS NO GUNS" signs front and back on their homes!

Reardon wrote on Apr 20, 2008 6:56 PM:GFN: Yes, SDRAOUL and I had a discussion regarding an immigration plan – I submitted a Win-Win solution and he replied something to the effect that it was worthy of consideration, and he acknowledge the Guest Worker portion of my plan.

My plan would have required current illegal aliens who wished to participate in the Guest Worker Plan to fist return their families to the country of origin – with the exception of those born in the US.

I have always believed that on a cost benefit analysis, the benefit is low-wage labor for certain agriculture, but the cost is families who use the schools, hospitals, and increased criminal activity when their children who join gangs.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:08 PM:"Chris", when you have nothing but rhetoric, you just change the subject. Gangbangers and terrorists? Come on now, apples and oranges.
Then you need to question my education, which is your way of saying I'm stupid, which is your opinion. Who is paying for this higher education? Certainly not you. The last time I checked, I payed for my college education. Nice try though. Suffice it to say that you and I will never agree on this matter, although I have agreed with you a few times in the past.
You just refuse to see anything but your side of things "Chris", and for that you will never see the whole picture.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:15 PM:Well said "Cheers" ! It is nice to have rational discussions and I like to think that there is a middle ground for most all subjects. The ones here who don't get me, never will, so I try not to waste my breath on them. The ones with open minds(which I like to consider myself} are the ones I am really interested in, for they are the ones who will take what I have to say with a grain of salt and be willing to look at things from a different perspective. This is what makes this Country great, discourse and discussion and finding a middle ground that works for most.
Like the saying goes, " A mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open"
Cheers Amigo! It's been a pleasure today, Nick.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 7:20 PM:LMAO.....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I just fell out of my chair at "SD Raoul's" boast that Baja California has less poverty than the U.S.
I would hope so considering it's a tad smaller....lol, even though it's another "Raoul" lie.
If Mexico's economy is so great "Raoul", why are 20+ Million of your compadres here in America? Oh yeah, it's to do all those jobs that Amercians won't do and send Billions in untaxed money back to help Mexico's economy....LOL.
You should give up writing and start doing stand-up, you seriously have a future in it.

GFN wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:09 PM:Thanks El Guero and SD...let's throw it out and discuss.

Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 8:54 PM:To "But Nick": I feel I have to comment on your post at Apr 20, 2008 1:34 PM.
You ask the questions,

" Can you not imagine that a Palestinian in Gaza or the West Bank might have a valid reason to resent Israel? That they might feel it right to be willing to fight with whatever they have to get their land back? Isn't that exactly what you would do in their shoes? Isn't this exact behavior heroic?"

Yes, Palestinians have a right to resent Israel, and don't the Israelis have a right to resent Palestinians? The difference is that the Palestinians target innocent women and children INTENTIONALLY. That is the difference that people just refuse to get. If your going to fight a war, you go after the Government and Military, you don't kill innocent people INTENTIONALLY.
Let's say you run me out of my house and off my land, and instead of coming after you, I target and kill all your family, women and children included. Does this make me heroic and justified? Absolutely not! It is cowardice, and I should be treated like a rabid dog, shot and buried.
Until the Palestinians decide to fight Israel like true men in battle with honor and quit targeting civilians with suicide bombers, I will continue to view them as rabid dogs.
Honor and integrity mean everything to me, as a soldier, a man, and a human being. I hope this explains why I feel the way I do.
Cheers, Nick.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:01 PM:"Mexico ahs chopped poverty by 20 percent under Presidents Fox and Calderon." That's because THAT 20% had illegally crossed the border to the US, and then they send their untaxed under the table, welfare monies back down to mexico.
And we already do HAVE a work program for legal immigration, but again it is not used by the illegals entering, so that theory is shot to all hell.
Nick, great post @ 7:20pm, sd would be good at stand up ...

Reardon wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:20 PM:Apropos of Nothing: Ever since the Supreme Court ruled that “Separate but equal is inherently unequal” I have wondered why we have the Ladies Professional Golf, and the men’s PGA; we have the NBA and the WNBA; we have women’s track and field and men’s track and field – inherently UNEQUAL.

Then, Danica Patrick won an Indy Car Race in Japan yesterday! Against the best of the non-Formula One, open-wheel men. No one got a head start, a mulligan, a woman’s tee – just line up and go. Estrogen or testosterone makes zero difference.

I was starting to wonder if Danica was a Anna Kornukova, or a Michelle Wie – talented and pretty but mostly a marketing phenom. Driving skill and nerve are all that count.

No question – Danica is a race car driver.

Chris to Nick wrote on Apr 20, 2008 9:34 PM:You are amazing. Everything you criticize me for applies to you with spades. It just amazes me that a person with all this education cannot see in himself what he is criticizing others for. For you to just blow off the comparison of gang bangers and Iraqis fighting the invaders (I know you call them terrorist) just shows how little you are able to comprehend the point someone is making. By the way stop using the word terrorist because that is disengenuous because at least they are in their own country whereas we are not so who is the terrorist. But of course you try to use all this EDUCATION to try to obfuscate the issue but it doesn't work with me.

Nick wrote on Apr 21, 2008 10:19 AM:Thanks "Chris". I am amazing.

Cindi wrote on Apr 21, 2008 10:26 AM:Want to use NCTD's sytem to get back and forth to work. Better get a six hour job and some no-doze. The buses and the trains don't work together and now they are talking about taking away much of the bus service in order to cover the cost overruns on the train. If they had a decent scheduler so buses and trains worked together it would be wonderful. But that would take away from their main intent. They want everyone to live along their transportation corridors so they can build apartments and commercial buildings on the land they have purchased with transportation dollars and become the NCTD empire.

If 1986 Amnesty wrote on Apr 21, 2008 1:33 PM:taught us nothing else, it taught us that illegal aliens do NOT want citizenship!!! They do NOT want to become Americans, they do NOT want to learn English, they do NOT want to assimilate or cooperate and they sure do NOT want to pay taxes. This FACT is proven when we consider that the ONLY thing accomplished by the 1986 Amnesty was 28 million more non tax paying, social service sucking, illegal aliens.

Warren B. wrote on Apr 21, 2008 2:19 PM: My sentiments exactly Cindi. We the riders of the NCTD "system" have quit using our autos to commute, reserving them for special occasions. Now, this "system", which supposedly is intended to provide alternate transportation to single-occupant automobile usage, threatens to partially dismantle this public conveyance methodology and destroy the ability of many to access their jobs, medical treatment, education, etc. Not everyone can or wants to drive. Not everyone should drive. And not everyone can afford or can tolerate living in crowded corridors of human dwellings. Many have to live farther out of town because they can only afford to live in those areas. By the way, whichever representative of NCTD had the nerve to say that people should not be rewarded for living out in the middle of nowhere-meaning off the Sprinter Corridor, I presume-had better get this into their head: there is no "middle of nowhere" in San Diego County anymore, except for the top of the mountains and the deserts. People are moving steadily east as there is no more affordable land in this area any longer. From what I've seen, I could do a better job of scheduling, organizing and supervising this organization for far less money than those who are in administrative positions now. Try me and judge me by my results. I dare you. This system is designed to move people around North County-ALL of North County, not just Escondido to Oceanside. This includes Ramona, Valley Center, Pauma Valley, Pala, Fallbrook etc. I ride the 388 daily from Pauma and back. That line is one of the busiest lines existing in the system. I have several suggestions as to how to deal with the financial problems of this company and none of them require the mass cutting of service. I intend to present these ideas at the 12:30pm NCTD open house in the Escondido Civic Center on Tues. the 22nd. One instance of waste during the Sprinter Railway construction was a couple of huge fines for the polluting of streambeds or riparian environments. That was about $1,000,000 or so down the drain unnecessarily. Perhaps if the upper level administrators would kick back 10% of their salaries for the errors they made, we could together find a way to balance the budget of NCTD. Remember, the Sprinter, the new toy of NCTD, is only a small part of the system. To get people to ride it, you have to either have transportation from the end of the line to work and back, transportation to the beginning of the line and home, or both. Otherwise no one will use the precious train at all.

Warren wrote on Apr 21, 2008 2:56 PM: Re: Nick and others discussing guns:
I used to belong to the anti-gun group. I had 4 or 5 handguns in my house when I was 21 and thereabouts. One day I realized that I was more likely to either shoot someone or have my guns taken by criminals and used to shoot someone. I wasn't a sporting user of firearms at that time. So I got rid of them. I was convinced by others that people having guns was a bad idea. Now, at an older age, I once again have guns. However, my guns are intended for sporting purposes. I have mostly black powder cap & ball revolvers which require skill and knowledge to even load, not to mention shoot. I also have a Sharps Buffalo rifle and a muzzle-loading pennsylvania rifle. The only relatively modern firearm I have is a reproduction double barrel 10 ga coach shotgun, like the guard on a stage used to carry. Concerning personal protection, I guarantee that that shotgun, my reproduction Uberti 1858 Remington .44 revolver or either of my open top cap & ball Colts will provide me with enough personal security should anyone try to break in and/or attack me in my home. I have come around to the belief that educated, trained users of firearms have every right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps there should be some sort of mental test to determine the ability and maturity of a person who wants to own a firearm. After all, we don't want men and women running around using their guns to settle scores and get revenge now, do we? And by the way, this gun owner is a politically liberal individual. We aren't all stamped out of the same mold, thank you very much.

Nick wrote on Apr 21, 2008 9:04 PM:Good on ya "Warren". More common sense and rational discussion. It's good to see that both sides of the fence can find middle ground. I am also a little envious of your Uberti Reproduction. From the sounds of your post, I think you might enjoy the Single Action Shooting Society. They are getting close to 40,000 members these days and are a really good bunch of people. If you find the time, head over to their website and look for an event near you.
Cheers, Nick.