PDA

View Full Version : Hollyweird Hypocrite!



ULTRAMAN VH
10-10-2006, 08:08 AM
EDITORIALS &
OPINION
View Archive | Printer Version


Rosie's Softheaded Scenario
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 10/5/2006

Gun Control: Ms. O'Donnell exploits the Amish tragedy to blame the National Rifle Association and "gun lobby." But is the issue too many guns or the fact that at schools there's often one gun too few?

On Tuesday's edition of ABC's "The View," well-known liberal activist and sometimes comedian Rosie O'Donnell used the occasion of the tragic hostage-taking and killings at an Amish school in Pennsylvania to editorialize that the event should provoke even tighter gun control.

The "queen of nice" opined: "I think the horror of imagining 6- to- 13-year-old girls handcuffed together and shot execution-style, one by one, is perhaps enough to awaken the nation that maybe we need some stricter gun control laws."

She went on to blame "the lobby organization of the NRA, allowing no rules and no registration and absolutely, sort of, carte blanche to make guns available to Americans in a way they're not in the rest of the world."

Well, the National Rifle Association does support sensible and workable things such as instant computerized checks of gun purchasers and mandatory punishment for offenders just for carrying or using a gun in a crime. But it doesn't believe in disarming potential victims, and supports concealed-weapons laws that have demonstrably reduced crime and murder rates around the country.

Gun control advocates such as O'Donnell prefer laws like the Gun Free School Zones Act, which have turned the area inside and outside schools into a free-fire zone for wackos who know there's little possibility they'll be confronted by an armed guard, teacher, principal or parent who might prevent these tragedies by confronting, keeping at bay or disabling an armed intruder.

Last year, seven people were killed at a high school in Red Lake, Minn., that did have a security guard. But the guard, the one individual who could have prevented the tragedy, and who saw the armed and dangerous shooter approach the school, was unarmed.

The problem in Red Lake was not that the nation has too many guns, but that it had one too few. An armed security guard could have held the killer at bay or disabled him. On more than one occasion armed citizens have successfully intervened in school shootings to save lives.

Few Americans are aware that in an October 1997 shooting spree at a Pearl, Miss., high school that left two students dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and immobilized the shooter until police arrived, preventing further killings.

A school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., that left one teacher dead was stopped only after the owner of a nearby restaurant pointed a gun at the shooter while he was attempting to reload and held him at bay, again preventing more deaths, until police arrived 11 minutes later.

Another school shooting occurred in January 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, when a disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and another student. Two of the three students who overpowered the gunman were armed; they ran to their cars to get the guns they used to disarm the shooter and prevent more deaths.

Back in 2000, when O'Donnell moved to Greenwich, Conn., from Nyack, N.Y., because Greenwich, in her view, was a "safe" community, the Stamford Advocate reported that her bodyguard applied to the Greenwich Police Department for a concealed-weapon permit to carry a firearm when he escorted her then 4-year-old to school. Apparently her children deserve armed protection, but not the children of those in her audience.

Those who say we will be made safer by disarming potential victims are shooting blanks.

DEMON CUNT
10-10-2006, 08:53 AM
Neocon distraction technique #13:

Never mind the Republican culture of corruption and child fucking; attack some worthless daytime TV personality.

Sorry UTRADOUCHE, opinion cannot be substituted for fact. You are indeed "shooting blanks."

FORD
10-10-2006, 09:01 AM
Let's ask MIKE MALLOY :)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/87uT2bbd0-o"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/87uT2bbd0-o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

BTW, Steve Malzberg is the biggest fucking douchebag I've ever seen on any news channel. He out-morons anyone on FAUX.

LoungeMachine
10-10-2006, 09:04 AM
Anyone else find it amusing a 38 year old that goes by the name ULTRAMAN and has a cartoon character as an avatar calls out "HollyWeird"?????


What a total fucking moron

LoungeMachine
10-10-2006, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Let's ask MIKE MALLOY :)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/87uT2bbd0-o"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/87uT2bbd0-o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

BTW, Steve Malzberg is the biggest fucking douchebag I've ever seen on any news channel. He out-morons anyone on FAUX.

LMMFAO

Better arm teachers because the TERRORISTS might storm the schools:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Fucking RePUKES

DrMaddVibe
10-10-2006, 09:27 AM
I'm sorry, but as a US citizen I'm entitled (within the laws of the states I'm in) to bear arms.

Without that hallmark from our Founding Fathers I seriously doubt we would've succeeded against the tyranny of England. They understood that and made sure to make it a strong point in the Bill of Rights.

"Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Making light or jokes about the laws we have on the books already doesn't do anything except make those doing it appear stupid about the rights they have as US citizens and the citizens of the states they reside in. If you don't like guns, fine don't own one. Don't expect the rest of America to follow suit though.

I expected the responses from the same morons on this topic.

ULTRAMAN VH
10-10-2006, 09:29 AM
Whew!! The Libbys are out in full force, on this fine Monday morning!! Morning Gents.

scamper
10-10-2006, 09:30 AM
O'donnell, is a fat pig who was never funny. That being said, this is America and everyone has a right to their opinion even if their kids bodyguard is packing. Hypocrite...fuck yeah

LoungeMachine
10-10-2006, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Whew!! The Libbys are out in full force, on this fine Monday morning!! Morning Gents.


It's Tuesday, you moron :rolleyes:

FORD
10-10-2006, 09:40 AM
There's nothing in the Second Ammendment about taking a gun to school, or to church, or to your job (unless you're a cop or in the military, or a mafia hit man, in which case it's required)

Why? Because there are some places where guns simply don't belong. Don't believe me? Try walking into an airport with one. They aren't going to buy a "second ammendment" defense. And that would have been the case even before the BCE made air travel such a pain in the ass.

FORD
10-10-2006, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
It's Tuesday, you moron :rolleyes:

Ultraboy must have a federal job, if he thinks this is Monday. Not even state employees get Idiot Day off anymore.

DrMaddVibe
10-10-2006, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by FORD
There's nothing in the Second Ammendment about taking a gun to school, or to church, or to your job (unless you're a cop or in the military, or a mafia hit man, in which case it's required)

Why? Because there are some places where guns simply don't belong. Don't believe me? Try walking into an airport with one. They aren't going to buy a "second ammendment" defense. And that would have been the case even before the BCE made air travel such a pain in the ass.



Hey assclown, read what I wrote AGAIN! I didn't say take a gun to school. I clearly stated what I meant.

DrMaddVibe
10-10-2006, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Ultraboy must have a federal job, if he thinks this is Monday. Not even state employees get Idiot Day off anymore.


Yeah, that work thing just busts your ass huh?


GET A JOB!

LoungeMachine
10-10-2006, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Hey assclown, read what I wrote AGAIN! I didn't say take a gun to school. I clearly stated what I meant.



Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I'm sorry, but as a US citizen I'm entitled (within the laws of the states I'm in) to bear arms.



Your response was to a thread ABOUT TAKING GUNS TO SCHOOL


Where exactly did you make it clear you didnt approve of guns in schools?

Nowhere.


:rolleyes:

FORD
10-10-2006, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Hey assclown, read what I wrote AGAIN! I didn't say take a gun to school. I clearly stated what I meant.

Ummmmm..... guns in schools is the subject of the thread, ASSVIBE!!

LoungeMachine
10-10-2006, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Yeah, that work thing just busts your ass huh?


GET A JOB!

I'll pass.

But hey, you better hurry off to work.....

Gotta a big wife to feed:D

LoungeMachine
10-10-2006, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Ummmmm..... guns in schools is the subject of the thread, ASSVIBE!!


Exactly.

It was your mistake for thinking he was on topic for once ;)

DrMaddVibe
10-10-2006, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Ummmmm..... guns in schools is the subject of the thread, ASSVIBE!!


You have a problem with following the laws States pass too?

ULTRAMAN VH
10-10-2006, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Ultraboy must have a federal job, if he thinks this is Monday. Not even state employees get Idiot Day off anymore.

Actually, I did have the day off yesterday, so I am a bit off schedule. Sorry, I am not perfect like Furd, Demon Cock lick and Lounge Queen.

DrMaddVibe
10-10-2006, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I'll pass.

But hey, you better hurry off to work.....

Gotta a big wife to feed:D


Yeah, hahahaha...she's as fat as your big rock career! Notice how you don't post in anything in the Gear Forum? You'd think a a guy that brags as much about being a rockstar would have pretty strong opinions about how to play or what gear to use. Instead that ass fuck sits in this room and talks politics because he can't do it on his "band's real website"!!!

I have some money to make...you two hang around and play on your grandparents computers!

LoungeMachine
10-10-2006, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Actually, I did have the day off yesterday, so I am a bit off schedule. Sorry, I am not perfect like Furd, Demon Cock lick and Lounge Queen.


Well it's going on 10 EDT

Doesn't the Mall open soon?

Better hurry off to work

FORD
10-10-2006, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You have a problem with following the laws States pass too?

In some cases, yes. For example when your criminal son of a bitch of a governor recently passed a law that authorized citizens of your state to shoot anyone who they "considered a threat".

That's a wide open invitation for lawlessness in the street, which in turn would be an excuse for Jebbie to enact the Martial Law provisons that he added to your state law just 4 days before his idiot brother used a classroom of 7 year olds as human shields as terrorists (supposedly) attacked this country.

Defend your home with guns? No problem at all.

Pack em around and act like Dodge fucking City in the streets? Absolutely ridiculous.

LoungeMachine
10-10-2006, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Yeah, hahahaha...she's as fat as your big rock career! Notice how you don't post in anything in the Gear Forum? You'd think a a guy that brags as much about being a rockstar would have pretty strong opinions about how to play or what gear to use. Instead that ass fuck sits in this room and talks politics because he can't do it on his "band's real website"!!!

I have some money to make...you two hang around and play on your grandparents computers!


Gear street??????

LMMFAO


You guys talking about "gear" doesn't interest me in the slightest.

I've been GIVEN more rigs than you'll ever be able to afford:rolleyes:



Hurry to Jiffy Lube. Doesn't the next car in get $5.00 off from you?

LoungeMachine
10-10-2006, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Yeah, hahahaha...she's as fat as your big rock career!


Oh shit.

Sorry to hear that.

Probably packed on the pounds after the kids.

:cool:

DrMaddVibe
10-10-2006, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I've been GIVEN more rigs than you'll ever be able to afford:rolleyes:


Give me one then!

DEMON CUNT
10-10-2006, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
I'm sorry, but as a US citizen I'm entitled (within the laws of the states I'm in) to bear arms.

Without that hallmark from our Founding Fathers I seriously doubt we would've succeeded against the tyranny of England.

Well, you are all set for the next time England attacks!

I am sure that Saddam got rid of all those WMD he heard that MsSaddBawls was packing heat!

Thank you for protecting our country with your gun!

Hopefully some crackhead won't steal it and use it on you.

DEMON CUNT
10-10-2006, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Give me one then!

Use your gun to go get your own!

Nickdfresh
10-10-2006, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Well, you are all set for the next time England attacks!

I am sure that Saddam got rid of all those WMD he heard that MsSaddBawls was packing heat!

Thank you for protecting our country with your gun!

Hopefully some crackhead won't steal it and use it on you.

LMFAO!! :D

Nickdfresh
10-10-2006, 08:14 PM
I own my own heat and I fully support the legal registration and ownership of firearms. But I find the whole "Militia" argument weak since there is NO militia anymore. And those steeped in the hokey and fundamentally dishonest NRA mythology and propaganda like "private guns helped us defeat the British," tend to ignore the fact that many of the muskets used were imported from France. Or that even during the heyday of the wild West, guns were banned from most towns and saloons. So I'm sure the NRA would have went to bat for the "Red Sashes" or for the Clanton Brothers (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWokcorral.htm) (who were illegally carrying firearms and refused to be disarmed) on their right to bear arms.

And today of course, the NRA fights for the right to prevent any restrictions whatsoever on guns, so we have more restrictions on the use of cars than we do firearms. And god forbid psychos go to a gunshow to get around the check, or police investigate why some kid in Virginia is buying 10 or 20 guns a week (since they might find out he's selling them to gangbangers and felons)...

scamper
10-11-2006, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
so we have more restrictions on the use of cars than we do firearms.

We should, cars kill more people than guns do.

Nickdfresh
10-11-2006, 06:22 AM
Cars don't kill people, people kill themselves and others with their driving...

Of course, the US murder rate is by far higher than almost any industrialized nation.

scamper
10-11-2006, 06:29 AM
My point exactly Nick, it works the same with guns, someone has to pull the trigger and they're the problem not the gun.

Nickdfresh
10-11-2006, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by scamper
My point exactly Nick, it works the same with guns, someone has to pull the trigger and they're the problem not the gun.

Of course, someone could buy guns and sell them to terrorist infiltrators too...

And BTW, if you're licenced to drive, what is one not licensed to own a gun? Insurance? Using guns while intoxicated? Mentally unfit people can buy weapons easily? Yeah, um, there's a slight double-standard there...

LoungeMachine
10-11-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by scamper
We should, cars kill more people than guns do.


Yeah, but ever try to stick up a liquor store with a Hyundai?

:D :D

LoungeMachine
10-11-2006, 09:36 AM
Guns don't kill people.....bullets kill people....
Guns just make the bullets go faster

-Comedian Jake Johansen

ULTRAMAN VH
10-11-2006, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Cars don't kill people, people kill themselves and others with their driving...

Of course, the US murder rate is by far higher than almost any industrialized nation.

Oh really, explain that to the disarmed citizens of Britain who can't even defend themselves from a well armed criminal element. Just thought reposting this excellent article would be appropriate here.

Liberalism and The Justice System, is the U.S. next?? Profile Pm Email Search Buddy IP

Real Crime, Fake Justice
Theodore Dalrymple

For the last 40 years, government policy in Britain, de facto if not always de jure, has been to render the British population virtually defenseless against criminals and criminality. Almost alone of British government policies, this one has been supremely effective: no Briton nowadays goes many hours without wondering how to avoid being victimized by a criminal intent on theft, burglary, or violence.

An unholy alliance between politicians and bureaucrats who want to keep prison costs to a minimum, and liberal intellectuals who pretend to see in crime a natural and understandable response to social injustice, which it would be a further injustice to punish, has engendered a prolonged and so far unfinished experiment in leniency that has debased the quality of life of millions of people, especially the poor. Every day in our newspapers we read of the absurd and dangerous leniency of the criminal-justice system. On April 21, for example, even the Observer (one of the bastions of British liberalism responsible for the present situation) gave prominence to the official report into the case of Anthony Rice, who strangled and then stabbed Naomi Bryant to death.

Rice, it turned out, had been assaulting women since 1972. He had been convicted for assaulting or raping a total of 15 women before murdering Naomi Bryant, and it is a fair supposition that he had assaulted or raped many more who did not go to the police. In 1982, he grabbed a woman by the throat, held a knife to her, and raped her. Five years later, while out of prison on home leave, he grabbed a woman, pushed her into a garden, held a knife to her, and raped her for an hour. Receiving a life sentence, he was transferred to an open prison in 2002 and then released two years later on parole as a low-risk parolee. He received housing in a hostel for ex-prisoners in a village whose inhabitants had been told, to gain their acquiescence, that none of the residents there was violent; five months after his arrival, he murdered Naomi Bryant. In pronouncing another life sentence on him, the judge ordered that he should serve at least 25 years: in other words, even now the law has not quite thrown away the key.

Only five days later, the papers reported that 1,023 prisoners of foreign origin had been released from British prisons between 1999 and 2006 without having been deported. Among them were 5 killers, 7 kidnappers, 9 rapists and 39 other sex offenders, 4 arsonists, 41 burglars, 52 thieves, 93 robbers, and 204 drug offenders. Of the 1,023 prisoners, only 106 had since been traced. The Home Office, responsible for both prisons and immigration, still doesn’t know how many of the killers, arsonists, rapists, and kidnappers are at large; but it admits that most of them will never be found, at least until they are caught after committing another offense. Although these revelations forced the Home Secretary to resign, in fact the foreign criminals had been treated only as British criminals are treated. At least we can truly say that we do not discriminate in our leniency.

Scandal has followed scandal. A short time later, we learned that prisoners had been absconding from one open prison, Leyhill, at a rate of two a week for three years—323 in total since 1999, among them 22 murderers. This outrage came to light only when a senior policeman in the area of Leyhill told a member of Parliament that there had been a crime wave in the vicinity of the prison. The member of Parliament demanded the figures in the House of Commons; otherwise they would have remained secret.

None of these revelations, however, would have surprised a man called David Fraser, who has just published a book entitled A Land Fit for Criminals—the land in question being Great Britain, of course. Far from being mistakes—for mistakes repeated so often cease to be mere mistakes—all these occurrences are in full compliance with general policy in Britain with regard to crime and criminality.

Fraser was a probation officer for more than a quarter of a century. He began to doubt the value of his work in terms of preventing crime and therefore protecting the public, but he at first assumed that, as a comparatively lowly official in the criminal-justice system, he was too mired in the grainy everyday detail to see the bigger picture. He assumed also that those in charge not only knew what they were doing but had the public interest at heart.

Eventually, however, the penny dropped. Fraser’s lack of success in effecting any change in the criminals under his supervision, and thus in reducing the number of crimes that they subsequently committed, to the great misery of the general public, was not his failure alone but was general throughout the system. Even worse, he discovered that the bureaucrats who ran the system, and their political masters, did not care about this failure, at least from the point of view of its impact on public safety; careerist to the core, they were only concerned that the public should not become aware of the catastrophe. To this end, they indulged in obfuscation, statistical legerdemain, and outright lies in order to prevent the calamity that public knowledge of the truth would represent for them and their careers.

The collective intellectual dishonesty of those who worked in the system so outraged Fraser—and the Kafkaesque world in which he found himself, where nothing was called by its real name and language tended more to conceal meaning than to convey it, so exasperated him—that, though not a man apt to obtrude upon the public, he determined to write a book. It took him two and a half years to do so, based on 20 years of research, and it is clear from the very first page that he wrote it from a burning need to expose and exorcise the lies and evasions with which he lived for so long, lies and evasions that helped in a few decades transform a law-abiding country with a reputation for civility into the country with the highest crime rate in the Western world, with an ever-present undercurrent of violence in daily life. Like Luther, Fraser could not but speak out. And, as events unfolded, his book has had a publishing history that is additionally revealing of the state of Britain today.

By example after example (repetition being necessary to establish that he has not just alighted on an isolated case of absurdity that might be found in any large-scale enterprise), Fraser demonstrates the unscrupulous lengths to which both bureaucrats and governments have gone to disguise from the public the effect of their policies and decisions, carried out with an almost sadistic indifference to the welfare of common people.

He shows that liberal intellectuals and their bureaucratic allies have left no stone unturned to ensure that the law-abiding should be left as defenseless as possible against the predations of criminals, from the emasculation of the police to the devising of punishments that do not punish and the propagation of sophistry by experts to mislead and confuse the public about what is happening in society, confusion rendering the public helpless in the face of the experimentation perpetrated upon it.

The police, Fraser shows, are like a nearly defeated occupying colonial force that, while mayhem reigns everywhere else, has retreated to safe enclaves, there to shuffle paper and produce bogus information to propitiate their political masters. Their first line of defense is to refuse to record half the crime that comes to their attention, which itself is less than half the crime committed. Then they refuse to investigate recorded crime, or to arrest the culprits even when it is easy to do so and the evidence against them is overwhelming, because the prosecuting authorities will either decline to prosecute, or else the resultant sentence will be so trivial as to make the whole procedure (at least 19 forms to fill in after a single arrest) pointless.

In any case, the authorities want the police to use a sanction known as the caution—a mere verbal warning. Indeed, as Fraser points out, the Home Office even reprimanded the West Midlands Police Force for bringing too many apprehended offenders to court, instead of merely giving them a caution. In the official version, only minor crimes are dealt with in this fashion: but as Fraser points out, in the year 2000 alone, 600 cases of robbery, 4,300 cases of car theft, 6,600 offenses of burglary, 13,400 offenses against public order, 35,400 cases of violence against the person, and 67,600 cases of other kinds of theft were dealt with in this fashion—in effect, letting these 127,900 offenders off scot-free. When one considers that the police clear-up rate of all crimes in Britain is scarcely more than one in 20 (and even that figure is based upon official deception), the liberal intellectual claim, repeated ad nauseam in the press and on the air, that the British criminal-justice system is primitively retributive is absurd.

At every point in the system, Fraser shows, deception reigns. When a judge sentences a criminal to three years’ imprisonment, he knows perfectly well (as does the press that reports it) that in the vast majority of cases the criminal in question will serve 18 months at the very most, because he is entitled automatically, as of right, to a suspension of half his sentence. Moreover, under a scheme of early release, increasingly used, prisoners serve considerably less than half their sentence. They may be tagged electronically under a system of home curfew, intended to give the public an assurance that they are being monitored: but the electronic tag stays on for less than 12 hours daily, giving criminals plenty of opportunity to follow their careers. Even when the criminals remove their tags (and it is known that thousands are removed or vandalized every year) or fail to abide by other conditions of their early release, those who are supposedly monitoring them do nothing whatever, for fear of spoiling the statistics of the system’s success. When the Home Office tried the tagging system with young criminals, 73 percent of them were reconvicted within three months. The authorities nevertheless decided to extend the scheme. The failure of the British state to take its responsibilities seriously could not be more clearly expressed.

Fraser draws attention to the deeply corrupt system in Britain under which a criminal, once caught, may ask for other offenses that he has committed to be “taken into consideration.” (Criminals call these offenses T.I.C.s.) This practice may be in the interests of both the criminal and the police, but not in those of the long-suffering public. The court will sentence the criminal to further prison terms that run concurrently, not consecutively, to that imposed for the index offense: in other words, he will in effect serve the same sentence for 50 burglaries as for one burglary, and he can never again face charges for the 49 burglaries that have been “taken into consideration.” Meanwhile, the police can preen themselves that they have “solved” 50 crimes for the price of one.

One Probation Service smokescreen that Fraser knows from personal experience is to measure its own effectiveness by the proportion of criminals who complete their probation in compliance with court orders—a procedural outcome that has no significance whatever for the safety of the public. Such criminals come under the direct observation of probation officers only one hour a week at the very most. What they do the other 167 hours of the week the probation officers cannot possibly know. Unless one takes the preposterous view that such criminals are incapable of telling lies about their activities to their probation officers, mere attendance at the probation office is no guarantee whatever that they are now leading law-abiding lives.

But even if completion of probation orders were accepted as a surrogate measure of success in preventing re-offending, the Probation Service’s figures have long been completely corrupt—and for a very obvious reason. Until 1997, the probation officers themselves decided when noncompliance with their directions was so egregious that they “breached” the criminals under their supervision and returned them to the courts because of such noncompliance. Since their own effectiveness was measured by the proportion of probation orders “successfully” completed, they had a very powerful motive for disregarding the noncompliance of criminals. In such circumstances, all activity became strictly pro forma, with no purpose external to itself.

While the government put an end to this particular statistical legerdemain, probation orders still go into the statistics as “successfully completed” if they reach their official termination date—even in many cases if the offender gets arrested for committing further offenses before that date. Only in this way can the Home Office claim that between 70 and 80 percent of probation orders are “successfully completed.”

In their effort to prove the liberal orthodoxy that prison does not work, criminologists, government officials, and journalists have routinely used the lower reconviction rates of those sentenced to probation and other forms of noncustodial punishment (the word “punishment” in these circumstances being used very loosely) than those imprisoned. But if the aim is to protect the law-abiding, a comparison of reconviction rates of those imprisoned and those put on probation is irrelevant. What counts is the re-offending rate—a point so obvious that it is shameful that Fraser should have not only to make it but to hammer it home repeatedly, for the politicians, academics, and journalistic hangers-on have completely obscured it.

By definition, a man in prison can commit no crimes (except against fellow prisoners and prison staff). But what of those out in the world on probation? Of 1,000 male criminals on probation, Fraser makes clear, about 600 will be reconvicted at least once within the two years that the Home Office follows them up for statistical purposes. The rate of detection in Britain of all crimes being about 5 percent, those 1,000 criminals will actually have committed not 600, but at least 12,000 crimes (assuming them to have been averagely competent criminals chased by averagely incompetent police). Even this is not quite all. Since there are, in fact, about 150,000 people on probation in Britain, it means that at least 1.8 million crimes—more than an eighth of the nation’s total—must be committed annually by people on probation, within the very purview of the criminal-justice system, or very shortly after they have been on probation. While some of these crimes might be “victimless,” or at least impersonal, research has shown that these criminals inflict untold misery upon the British population: misery that they would not have been able to inflict had they been in prison for a year instead of on probation.

To compare the reconviction rates of ex-prisoners and people on probation as an argument against prison is not only irrelevant from the point of view of public safety but is also logically absurd. Of course the imprisoned will have higher reconviction rates once they get out of jail—not because prison failed to reform them, but because it is the most hardened, incorrigible, and recidivist criminals who go to prison. Again, this point is so obvious that it is shameful that anyone should have to point it out; yet politicians and others continue to use the reconviction rates as if they were a proper basis for deciding policy.

Relentless for hundreds of pages, Fraser provides examples of how the British government and its bloated and totally ineffectual bureaucratic apparatus, through moral and intellectual frivolity as well as plain incompetence, has failed in its elementary and sole inescapable duty: to protect the lives and property of the citizenry. He exposes the absurd prejudice that has become a virtually unassailable orthodoxy among the intellectual and political elite: that we have too many prisoners in Britain, as if there were an ideal number of prisoners, derived from a purely abstract principle, at which, independent of the number of crimes committed, we should aim. He describes in full detail the moral and intellectual corruption of the British criminal-justice system, from police decisions not to record crimes or to charge wrongdoers, to the absurdly light sentences given after conviction and the administrative means by which prisoners end up serving less than half their time, irrespective of their dangerousness or the likelihood that they will re-offend.

According to Fraser, at the heart of the British idiocy is the condescending and totally unrealistic idea—which, however, provides employment opportunities for armies of apparatchiks, as well as being psychologically gratifying—that burglars, thieves, and robbers are not conscious malefactors who calculate their chances of getting away with it, but people in the grip of something rather like a mental disease, whose thoughts, feelings, and decision-making processes need to be restructured. The whole criminal-justice system ought therefore to act in a therapeutic or medical, rather than a punitive and deterrent, fashion. Burglars do not know, poor things, that householders are upset by housebreaking, and so we must educate and inform them on this point; and we must also seek to persuade them of something that all their experience so far has taught them to be false, namely that crime does not pay.

All in all, Fraser’s book is a searing and unanswerable (or at least so far unanswered) indictment of the British criminal-justice system, and therefore of the British state. As Fraser pointed out to me, the failure of the state to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and to take seriously its duty in this regard, creates a politically dangerous situation, for it puts the very legitimacy of the state itself at risk. The potential consequences are incalculable, for the failure might bring the rule of law itself into disrepute and give an opportunity to the brutal and the authoritarian.

You might have thought that any publisher would gratefully accept a book so urgent in its message, so transparently the product of a burning need to communicate obvious but uncomfortable truths of such public interest, conveyed in such a way that anyone of reasonable intelligence might understand them. Any publisher, you would think, would feel fortunate to have such a manuscript land on his desk. But you would be wrong, at least as far as Britain is concerned.

So uncongenial was Fraser’s message to all right-thinking Britons that 60 publishers to whom he sent the book turned it down. In a country that publishes more than 10,000 books monthly, not many of which are imperishable masterpieces, there was no room for it or for what it said, though it would take no great acumen to see its commercial possibilities in a country crowded with crime victims. So great was the pressure of the orthodoxy now weighing on the minds of the British intelligentsia that Fraser might as well have gone to Mecca and said that there is no God and that Mohammed was not His prophet. Of course, no publisher actually told him that what he said was unacceptable or unsayable in public: his book merely did not “fit the list” of any publisher. He was the victim of British publishing’s equivalent of Mafia omerta.

Fortunately, he did not give up, as he sometimes thought of doing. The 61st publisher to whom he sent the book accepted it. I mean no disrespect to her judgment when I say that it was her personal situation that distinguished her from her fellow publishers: for her husband’s son by a previous marriage had not long before been murdered in the street, stabbed by a drug-dealing Jamaican immigrant, aged 20, who had not been deported despite his criminal record but instead allowed to stay in the country as if he were a national treasure to be at all costs cherished and nurtured. Indeed, in court, his lawyer presented him as an unemployed painter and decorator, the victim of racial prejudice (a mitigating circumstance, of course), a view that the prosecution did not challenge, even though the killer had somehow managed alchemically to transmute his unemployment benefits into a new convertible costing some $54,000.

The maternal grandmother of the murdered boy, who had never been ill in her life, died of a heart attack a week after his death, and so the funeral was a double one. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the killer killed not one but two people. He received a sentence of eight years—which, in effect, will be four or five years.

I asked the publisher the impossible question of whether she would have published the book if someone close to her had not had such firsthand experience of the frivolous leniency of the British criminal-justice system. She said she thought so: but what is beyond dispute is that the murder made her publication of the book a certainty.

A Land Fit for Criminals has sold well and has been very widely discussed, though not by the most important liberal newspapers, which would find the whole subject in bad taste. But the book’s publishing history demonstrates how close we have come to an almost totalitarian uniformity of the sayable, imposed informally by right-thinking people in the name of humanity, but in utter disregard for the truth and the reality of their fellow citizens’ lives. Better that they, the right-thinking, should feel pleased with their own rectitude and broadmindedness, than that millions should be freed of their fear of robbery and violence, as in crime-ridden, pre-Giuliani New York. Too bad Fraser’s voice had to be heard over someone’s dead body.


[Post #1]
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Real Crime, Fake Justice
Theodore Dalrymple

For the last 40 years, government policy in Britain, de facto if not always de jure, has been to render the British population virtually defenseless against criminals and criminality. Almost alone of British government policies, this one has been supremely effective: no Briton nowadays goes many hours without wondering how to avoid being victimized by a criminal intent on theft, burglary, or violence.

An unholy alliance between politicians and bureaucrats who want to keep prison costs to a minimum, and liberal intellectuals who pretend to see in crime a natural and understandable response to social injustice, which it would be a further injustice to punish, has engendered a prolonged and so far unfinished experiment in leniency that has debased the quality of life of millions of people, especially the poor. Every day in our newspapers we read of the absurd and dangerous leniency of the criminal-justice system. On April 21, for example, even the Observer (one of the bastions of British liberalism responsible for the present situation) gave prominence to the official report into the case of Anthony Rice, who strangled and then stabbed Naomi Bryant to death.

Rice, it turned out, had been assaulting women since 1972. He had been convicted for assaulting or raping a total of 15 women before murdering Naomi Bryant, and it is a fair supposition that he had assaulted or raped many more who did not go to the police. In 1982, he grabbed a woman by the throat, held a knife to her, and raped her. Five years later, while out of prison on home leave, he grabbed a woman, pushed her into a garden, held a knife to her, and raped her for an hour. Receiving a life sentence, he was transferred to an open prison in 2002 and then released two years later on parole as a low-risk parolee. He received housing in a hostel for ex-prisoners in a village whose inhabitants had been told, to gain their acquiescence, that none of the residents there was violent; five months after his arrival, he murdered Naomi Bryant. In pronouncing another life sentence on him, the judge ordered that he should serve at least 25 years: in other words, even now the law has not quite thrown away the key.

Only five days later, the papers reported that 1,023 prisoners of foreign origin had been released from British prisons between 1999 and 2006 without having been deported. Among them were 5 killers, 7 kidnappers, 9 rapists and 39 other sex offenders, 4 arsonists, 41 burglars, 52 thieves, 93 robbers, and 204 drug offenders. Of the 1,023 prisoners, only 106 had since been traced. The Home Office, responsible for both prisons and immigration, still doesn’t know how many of the killers, arsonists, rapists, and kidnappers are at large; but it admits that most of them will never be found, at least until they are caught after committing another offense. Although these revelations forced the Home Secretary to resign, in fact the foreign criminals had been treated only as British criminals are treated. At least we can truly say that we do not discriminate in our leniency.

Scandal has followed scandal. A short time later, we learned that prisoners had been absconding from one open prison, Leyhill, at a rate of two a week for three years—323 in total since 1999, among them 22 murderers. This outrage came to light only when a senior policeman in the area of Leyhill told a member of Parliament that there had been a crime wave in the vicinity of the prison. The member of Parliament demanded the figures in the House of Commons; otherwise they would have remained secret.

None of these revelations, however, would have surprised a man called David Fraser, who has just published a book entitled A Land Fit for Criminals—the land in question being Great Britain, of course. Far from being mistakes—for mistakes repeated so often cease to be mere mistakes—all these occurrences are in full compliance with general policy in Britain with regard to crime and criminality.

Fraser was a probation officer for more than a quarter of a century. He began to doubt the value of his work in terms of preventing crime and therefore protecting the public, but he at first assumed that, as a comparatively lowly official in the criminal-justice system, he was too mired in the grainy everyday detail to see the bigger picture. He assumed also that those in charge not only knew what they were doing but had the public interest at heart.

Eventually, however, the penny dropped. Fraser’s lack of success in effecting any change in the criminals under his supervision, and thus in reducing the number of crimes that they subsequently committed, to the great misery of the general public, was not his failure alone but was general throughout the system. Even worse, he discovered that the bureaucrats who ran the system, and their political masters, did not care about this failure, at least from the point of view of its impact on public safety; careerist to the core, they were only concerned that the public should not become aware of the catastrophe. To this end, they indulged in obfuscation, statistical legerdemain, and outright lies in order to prevent the calamity that public knowledge of the truth would represent for them and their careers.

The collective intellectual dishonesty of those who worked in the system so outraged Fraser—and the Kafkaesque world in which he found himself, where nothing was called by its real name and language tended more to conceal meaning than to convey it, so exasperated him—that, though not a man apt to obtrude upon the public, he determined to write a book. It took him two and a half years to do so, based on 20 years of research, and it is clear from the very first page that he wrote it from a burning need to expose and exorcise the lies and evasions with which he lived for so long, lies and evasions that helped in a few decades transform a law-abiding country with a reputation for civility into the country with the highest crime rate in the Western world, with an ever-present undercurrent of violence in daily life. Like Luther, Fraser could not but speak out. And, as events unfolded, his book has had a publishing history that is additionally revealing of the state of Britain today.

By example after example (repetition being necessary to establish that he has not just alighted on an isolated case of absurdity that might be found in any large-scale enterprise), Fraser demonstrates the unscrupulous lengths to which both bureaucrats and governments have gone to disguise from the public the effect of their policies and decisions, carried out with an almost sadistic indifference to the welfare of common people.

He shows that liberal intellectuals and their bureaucratic allies have left no stone unturned to ensure that the law-abiding should be left as defenseless as possible against the predations of criminals, from the emasculation of the police to the devising of punishments that do not punish and the propagation of sophistry by experts to mislead and confuse the public about what is happening in society, confusion rendering the public helpless in the face of the experimentation perpetrated upon it.

The police, Fraser shows, are like a nearly defeated occupying colonial force that, while mayhem reigns everywhere else, has retreated to safe enclaves, there to shuffle paper and produce bogus information to propitiate their political masters. Their first line of defense is to refuse to record half the crime that comes to their attention, which itself is less than half the crime committed. Then they refuse to investigate recorded crime, or to arrest the culprits even when it is easy to do so and the evidence against them is overwhelming, because the prosecuting authorities will either decline to prosecute, or else the resultant sentence will be so trivial as to make the whole procedure (at least 19 forms to fill in after a single arrest) pointless.

In any case, the authorities want the police to use a sanction known as the caution—a mere verbal warning. Indeed, as Fraser points out, the Home Office even reprimanded the West Midlands Police Force for bringing too many apprehended offenders to court, instead of merely giving them a caution. In the official version, only minor crimes are dealt with in this fashion: but as Fraser points out, in the year 2000 alone, 600 cases of robbery, 4,300 cases of car theft, 6,600 offenses of burglary, 13,400 offenses against public order, 35,400 cases of violence against the person, and 67,600 cases of other kinds of theft were dealt with in this fashion—in effect, letting these 127,900 offenders off scot-free. When one considers that the police clear-up rate of all crimes in Britain is scarcely more than one in 20 (and even that figure is based upon official deception), the liberal intellectual claim, repeated ad nauseam in the press and on the air, that the British criminal-justice system is primitively retributive is absurd.

At every point in the system, Fraser shows, deception reigns. When a judge sentences a criminal to three years’ imprisonment, he knows perfectly well (as does the press that reports it) that in the vast majority of cases the criminal in question will serve 18 months at the very most, because he is entitled automatically, as of right, to a suspension of half his sentence. Moreover, under a scheme of early release, increasingly used, prisoners serve considerably less than half their sentence. They may be tagged electronically under a system of home curfew, intended to give the public an assurance that they are being monitored: but the electronic tag stays on for less than 12 hours daily, giving criminals plenty of opportunity to follow their careers. Even when the criminals remove their tags (and it is known that thousands are removed or vandalized every year) or fail to abide by other conditions of their early release, those who are supposedly monitoring them do nothing whatever, for fear of spoiling the statistics of the system’s success. When the Home Office tried the tagging system with young criminals, 73 percent of them were reconvicted within three months. The authorities nevertheless decided to extend the scheme. The failure of the British state to take its responsibilities seriously could not be more clearly expressed.

Fraser draws attention to the deeply corrupt system in Britain under which a criminal, once caught, may ask for other offenses that he has committed to be “taken into consideration.” (Criminals call these offenses T.I.C.s.) This practice may be in the interests of both the criminal and the police, but not in those of the long-suffering public. The court will sentence the criminal to further prison terms that run concurrently, not consecutively, to that imposed for the index offense: in other words, he will in effect serve the same sentence for 50 burglaries as for one burglary, and he can never again face charges for the 49 burglaries that have been “taken into consideration.” Meanwhile, the police can preen themselves that they have “solved” 50 crimes for the price of one.

One Probation Service smokescreen that Fraser knows from personal experience is to measure its own effectiveness by the proportion of criminals who complete their probation in compliance with court orders—a procedural outcome that has no significance whatever for the safety of the public. Such criminals come under the direct observation of probation officers only one hour a week at the very most. What they do the other 167 hours of the week the probation officers cannot possibly know. Unless one takes the preposterous view that such criminals are incapable of telling lies about their activities to their probation officers, mere attendance at the probation office is no guarantee whatever that they are now leading law-abiding lives.

But even if completion of probation orders were accepted as a surrogate measure of success in preventing re-offending, the Probation Service’s figures have long been completely corrupt—and for a very obvious reason. Until 1997, the probation officers themselves decided when noncompliance with their directions was so egregious that they “breached” the criminals under their supervision and returned them to the courts because of such noncompliance. Since their own effectiveness was measured by the proportion of probation orders “successfully” completed, they had a very powerful motive for disregarding the noncompliance of criminals. In such circumstances, all activity became strictly pro forma, with no purpose external to itself.

While the government put an end to this particular statistical legerdemain, probation orders still go into the statistics as “successfully completed” if they reach their official termination date—even in many cases if the offender gets arrested for committing further offenses before that date. Only in this way can the Home Office claim that between 70 and 80 percent of probation orders are “successfully completed.”

In their effort to prove the liberal orthodoxy that prison does not work, criminologists, government officials, and journalists have routinely used the lower reconviction rates of those sentenced to probation and other forms of noncustodial punishment (the word “punishment” in these circumstances being used very loosely) than those imprisoned. But if the aim is to protect the law-abiding, a comparison of reconviction rates of those imprisoned and those put on probation is irrelevant. What counts is the re-offending rate—a point so obvious that it is shameful that Fraser should have not only to make it but to hammer it home repeatedly, for the politicians, academics, and journalistic hangers-on have completely obscured it.

By definition, a man in prison can commit no crimes (except against fellow prisoners and prison staff). But what of those out in the world on probation? Of 1,000 male criminals on probation, Fraser makes clear, about 600 will be reconvicted at least once within the two years that the Home Office follows them up for statistical purposes. The rate of detection in Britain of all crimes being about 5 percent, those 1,000 criminals will actually have committed not 600, but at least 12,000 crimes (assuming them to have been averagely competent criminals chased by averagely incompetent police). Even this is not quite all. Since there are, in fact, about 150,000 people on probation in Britain, it means that at least 1.8 million crimes—more than an eighth of the nation’s total—must be committed annually by people on probation, within the very purview of the criminal-justice system, or very shortly after they have been on probation. While some of these crimes might be “victimless,” or at least impersonal, research has shown that these criminals inflict untold misery upon the British population: misery that they would not have been able to inflict had they been in prison for a year instead of on probation.

To compare the reconviction rates of ex-prisoners and people on probation as an argument against prison is not only irrelevant from the point of view of public safety but is also logically absurd. Of course the imprisoned will have higher reconviction rates once they get out of jail—not because prison failed to reform them, but because it is the most hardened, incorrigible, and recidivist criminals who go to prison. Again, this point is so obvious that it is shameful that anyone should have to point it out; yet politicians and others continue to use the reconviction rates as if they were a proper basis for deciding policy.

Relentless for hundreds of pages, Fraser provides examples of how the British government and its bloated and totally ineffectual bureaucratic apparatus, through moral and intellectual frivolity as well as plain incompetence, has failed in its elementary and sole inescapable duty: to protect the lives and property of the citizenry. He exposes the absurd prejudice that has become a virtually unassailable orthodoxy among the intellectual and political elite: that we have too many prisoners in Britain, as if there were an ideal number of prisoners, derived from a purely abstract principle, at which, independent of the number of crimes committed, we should aim. He describes in full detail the moral and intellectual corruption of the British criminal-justice system, from police decisions not to record crimes or to charge wrongdoers, to the absurdly light sentences given after conviction and the administrative means by which prisoners end up serving less than half their time, irrespective of their dangerousness or the likelihood that they will re-offend.

According to Fraser, at the heart of the British idiocy is the condescending and totally unrealistic idea—which, however, provides employment opportunities for armies of apparatchiks, as well as being psychologically gratifying—that burglars, thieves, and robbers are not conscious malefactors who calculate their chances of getting away with it, but people in the grip of something rather like a mental disease, whose thoughts, feelings, and decision-making processes need to be restructured. The whole criminal-justice system ought therefore to act in a therapeutic or medical, rather than a punitive and deterrent, fashion. Burglars do not know, poor things, that householders are upset by housebreaking, and so we must educate and inform them on this point; and we must also seek to persuade them of something that all their experience so far has taught them to be false, namely that crime does not pay.

All in all, Fraser’s book is a searing and unanswerable (or at least so far unanswered) indictment of the British criminal-justice system, and therefore of the British state. As Fraser pointed out to me, the failure of the state to protect the lives and property of its citizens, and to take seriously its duty in this regard, creates a politically dangerous situation, for it puts the very legitimacy of the state itself at risk. The potential consequences are incalculable, for the failure might bring the rule of law itself into disrepute and give an opportunity to the brutal and the authoritarian.

You might have thought that any publisher would gratefully accept a book so urgent in its message, so transparently the product of a burning need to communicate obvious but uncomfortable truths of such public interest, conveyed in such a way that anyone of reasonable intelligence might understand them. Any publisher, you would think, would feel fortunate to have such a manuscript land on his desk. But you would be wrong, at least as far as Britain is concerned.

So uncongenial was Fraser’s message to all right-thinking Britons that 60 publishers to whom he sent the book turned it down. In a country that publishes more than 10,000 books monthly, not many of which are imperishable masterpieces, there was no room for it or for what it said, though it would take no great acumen to see its commercial possibilities in a country crowded with crime victims. So great was the pressure of the orthodoxy now weighing on the minds of the British intelligentsia that Fraser might as well have gone to Mecca and said that there is no God and that Mohammed was not His prophet. Of course, no publisher actually told him that what he said was unacceptable or unsayable in public: his book merely did not “fit the list” of any publisher. He was the victim of British publishing’s equivalent of Mafia omerta.

Fortunately, he did not give up, as he sometimes thought of doing. The 61st publisher to whom he sent the book accepted it. I mean no disrespect to her judgment when I say that it was her personal situation that distinguished her from her fellow publishers: for her husband’s son by a previous marriage had not long before been murdered in the street, stabbed by a drug-dealing Jamaican immigrant, aged 20, who had not been deported despite his criminal record but instead allowed to stay in the country as if he were a national treasure to be at all costs cherished and nurtured. Indeed, in court, his lawyer presented him as an unemployed painter and decorator, the victim of racial prejudice (a mitigating circumstance, of course), a view that the prosecution did not challenge, even though the killer had somehow managed alchemically to transmute his unemployment benefits into a new convertible costing some $54,000.

The maternal grandmother of the murdered boy, who had never been ill in her life, died of a heart attack a week after his death, and so the funeral was a double one. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the killer killed not one but two people. He received a sentence of eight years—which, in effect, will be four or five years.

I asked the publisher the impossible question of whether she would have published the book if someone close to her had not had such firsthand experience of the frivolous leniency of the British criminal-justice system. She said she thought so: but what is beyond dispute is that the murder made her publication of the book a certainty.

A Land Fit for Criminals has sold well and has been very widely discussed, though not by the most important liberal newspapers, which would find the whole subject in bad taste. But the book’s publishing history demonstrates how close we have come to an almost totalitarian uniformity of the sayable, imposed informally by right-thinking people in the name of humanity, but in utter disregard for the truth and the reality of their fellow citizens’ lives. Better that they, the right-thinking, should feel pleased with their own rectitude and broadmindedness, than that millions should be freed of their fear of robbery and violence, as in crime-ridden, pre-Giuliani New York. Too bad Fraser’s voice had to be heard over someone’s dead body.

quick quote


Favorite Rothism: Look i'm payin for it!! What the F**K!!!

Ellyllions
10-11-2006, 10:10 AM
Ok, first off Rosie O'Donnell talking about control (of any kind) carries as much weight as Mark Foley talking about family values. I'm sorry folks, but Rosie is a fucking joke. From head to toe.

Gun control isn't the issue in these school shootings but once again society can't see the forest for the trees. Criminals and crazies know what's illegal and legal and yet.......(anyone care to finish this sentence?) It's not like it's a NEWS FLASH that it's bad to kill people whether you're using a gun or a spoon. So if you think making guns illegal is going to solve anything just take a look at drug laws and how often their broken.

If you come into my house in a forcible or uninvited way, you will get shot. End of story. It won't be a deadly wound unless I decide to let you suffer a little longer and delay calling 911. And I deserve that independence. We are a nation bound by our citizens independence to live freely and to have properties and liberties that are not to be infringed upon by some selfish person that will forcibly try to take from you. That is the premise being the Constituionality of citizens rights to bear arms. It gives the individual citizen the independence to control their environment if the unfortunate need arises. And I won't agree to that being taken away.

I worked in Law Enforcement and let me tell you, if we outlaw guns only people who want to obey the law will submit. And I'm NOT ok with not having the independence to protect my family or my property with like force that a criminal might come at me with. PERIOD.

These school shootings go much deeper than a gun problem. I'll say it a million times if I have to YOU CAN'T CONTROL HUMAN BEHAVIOR. Just like Rosie can't control the urge to keep that fork close to her mouth. It's no different than New York trying to outlaw Trans-fat because people are obese. You can oulaw guns, fat, cigarettes, chocolate, water, milk, red meat...etc...all you want to but until obese people don't get off their butts and move more, nothing will change.

Crazies who decide to purge their demons by storming schools and killing weaker people won't be deterred by more strict gun control. They will still get guns and will still commit crimes. IT'S A CRIME TO INTRUDE ON SCHOOL PROPERTY.

Has anyone stopped to think that just maybe all the pressure of being told what to do in almost every aspect of our lives might just be a root cause of all the violence? We claim to be the most free nation on the globe and yet we have more laws on the books than any other country on the planet.

LoungeMachine
10-11-2006, 10:11 AM
jesus, you're a fuckin moron....


Not you, elly.....

UltraVagina VH

LoungeMachine
10-11-2006, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
We claim to be the most free nation on the globe and yet we have more laws on the books than any other country on the planet.


Do you have a source on this?

Not sure I believe it....

Ellyllions
10-11-2006, 10:20 AM
I'll find that.

Plus I want to take a look at this year's Uniformed Crime Report.
I want some accurate data on the number of domestic solved/unsolved murders vs. gang-related murders. See, one aspect of the gun control lobbyists is using gang related crimes that involve guns. I don't see that as a valid computation because gangs are already illegal. They do deal in black-market firearms as do drug czars. So the illegal actions they take should be blanketed under some organized crime reporting. They're not buying a 20-06 at the local Guns-r-us and registering it through the proper channels. They're stashing and sharing firearms (already illegal automatics) in secrecy.

LoungeMachine
10-11-2006, 10:38 AM
Can you find those results while wearing that see thru Teddy I bought you?

;)

ELVIS
10-11-2006, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by FORD

That's a wide open invitation for lawlessness in the street, which in turn would be an excuse for Jebbie to enact the Martial Law provisons that he added to your state law just 4 days before his idiot brother used a classroom of 7 year olds as human shields as terrorists (supposedly) attacked this country.



One more "which" and that sentance would qualify as a wayne L. masterpiece...

Seriously though, just when I start to think you're intelligent again, you spout of with bullshit like this...

Come on dude...:rolleyes:

Ellyllions
10-11-2006, 10:54 AM
Of course I will baby....Even though I'm not sure where you got 3 band-aids and this much burlap.....

I gotta thank you for asking me for a reference though. I wouldn't have ever come across this article if I hadn't....

http://www.mises.org/etexts/classical.asp

It's very long but I agree with every word this guy says. I'll be trying to find more from him later.

But this exerpt affirms my statement:


"The Unliberal Present
When the constitution was written, Washington, D.C., was a marshy cow pasture with a couple of buildings, and American society was the freest in the world. Today, the D.C. metropolitan area is the richest on the face of the earth because it is host to the biggest government in the world.

The U.S. government has more people, resources, and powers at its disposal than any other. It regulates more and in finer detail than any government on the planet. Its military empire is the largest and the most far-flung in the history of the world. Its annual tax take dwarfs the total output of, for example, the old Soviet Union."

full credit to Mr. by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

ELVIS
10-11-2006, 11:04 AM
So what does that have to do with this thread...

The idea is to have a deterrent to psychopaths who decide to walk into a school and start blowing people away...

The deterrent is the fact that someone might blow them away first!

With the propler safeguards in place, It can be safe and effective...

Do any of you libs have a better idea ??

Ellyllions
10-11-2006, 11:10 AM
Until you can predict human behavior there is no way to deter psychopaths from walking into a school and start blowing people away.

It has to do with this thread because the arguement at hand is that if we take away the guns we can stop the violence. NOT!

My idea is to make punishment for criminals SWIFT and REAL again. Stop pandering to their "feelings" or state of mental health at the time. It's amazing how many psychopaths were crazy at the time, but tend to be perfectly normal folk behind bars...

You can't stop crazy.

ELVIS
10-11-2006, 11:42 AM
You're making that bullshit up...

Knowing that there might be someone with a gun ready to blow you away IS a deterrent to alot of criminals, not all, but alot of them...

You might not be able to "stop crazy" but you CAN try to deter it...

Being ready to BLOW CRAZY AWAY in my mind is a deterrant...

Call me crazy...


:elvis:

Ellyllions
10-11-2006, 11:43 AM
Elvis....did you even read my first post?

ELVIS
10-11-2006, 11:47 AM
Yes...

I'll read it again if you like...

ELVIS
10-11-2006, 11:52 AM
Ok, I read it again and you seem to be on the sane side of this issue, but "SWIFT and REAL" punishment to me is having the ability to blow away a school shooter on the spot...

Do you agree ??

Ellyllions
10-11-2006, 11:54 AM
I do agree...

WACF
10-11-2006, 11:55 AM
The thought of a teacher with a gun is frigtening.

Think of this...in order to be a teacher...if they are to be armed....you would have to take the same phyciatiric test that police officers, armed guards must take...you would cull the herd I am sure.
Would being completely mentally fit become a condition of employment.
What if a teacher is going through a divorce or just plain depressed.
You want him/her armed with your kids for the day?

I had teachers that were off the mark a bit...perhaps brilliant at science or math...but fucking social retards or just plain strange.

I got a chuckle from that reporter trying to misquote the "teachers with kalashkinovs" bit...fuck I hate it when reporters pull that shit...

ELVIS
10-11-2006, 12:00 PM
You're incorrect...

The teachers would not be armed...

As I understand it, the guns would be under lock and key and would require a specific threat to be accessed...

Nickdfresh
10-11-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Oh really, explain that to the disarmed citizens of Britain who can't even defend themselves from a well armed criminal element. Just thought reposting this excellent article would be appropriate here.



You're completely idiotic. First of all, Seshmeister actually debunked this bullshit e-spam months ago!

Secondly, why don't you tally up the murder rates of the U.S. and the U.K., compare and contrast --then get back to me...

WACF
10-11-2006, 12:12 PM
So then when I presume the gun is in the classroom and the teacher has the key I am wrong then?

Ellyllions
10-11-2006, 12:18 PM
If I'm not mistaken, almost every school in this country has an officer or two on the campus at all times. Officers should be the only people allowed to access the guns.

I'm not entirely comfortable with a mass of guns on a school campus either. I'm not even entirely comfortable with campus officers carrying guns around in the hallways.

I'm telling ya'll there is no rock solid solution to this. This will trail off, right now we're all suffering from copycats. But more strict gun control laws are not the answer.

Ellyllions
10-11-2006, 12:20 PM
BUT, if I were in a position to have to brainstorm to try to come up with a solution to these shootings....I would start with the entrances to the schools.

ELVIS
10-11-2006, 12:29 PM
Well most schools have metal detectors...

I hasn't worked or helped, apparently...

Ellyllions
10-11-2006, 12:35 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of keeping the doors locked.

Think about how none of this would be going on if the predators couldn't get into the schools in the first place... ya know?

Every one is so quick to rush to the gun when ya gotta wonder why the fucking doors aren't locked. Put them on the classrooms...only open one way without a key (being from the inside)...use the buddy system when letting kids out of the classrooms to go to the johns during class with the bathrooms having one way doors with passkey entrance...

Ya know there are ways to keep people out of schools.

ELVIS
10-11-2006, 12:40 PM
You don't have to be physically in the school to shoot people...

Ellyllions
10-11-2006, 12:53 PM
Well, if they're shooting from outside, they shouldn't be hard to take out by campus police.

I mean we could go through every possible scenerio we can dream up even to the point of madness.

But like I said, if I were in charge of coming up with something I would start with access to the children. Not with guns.

WACF
10-11-2006, 01:00 PM
The cost of putting armed guards at every school would astronomical.

Part of the problem would be the way the media puts these clowns on the news.
The Montreal shooting was immediatly coupled with a recount of columine and the showing the pictures of the shooters.

A bigger part is mental illness or just plain angry demented people.

We have gun laws here and it really does not help prevent things like this.

ELVIS
10-11-2006, 01:01 PM
Hmmm...

ULTRAMAN VH
10-11-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You're completely idiotic. First of all, Seshmeister actually debunked this bullshit e-spam months ago!

Secondly, why don't you tally up the murder rates of the U.S. and the U.K., compare and contrast --then get back to me...

Oh, how foolish of me!! Someone with an avatar of Fozzy bear getting jerked off by Kermit the frog is an authority on the justice system of Great Britain. I think the author of the above article has a better understanding of crime in the UK than Sesh.

FORD
10-11-2006, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Oh, how foolish of me!! Someone with an avatar of Fozzy bear getting jerked off by Kermit the frog is an authority on the justice system of Great Britain.

As opposed to someone with the name and avatar of a Japanese Transformers ripoff? :confused:

DrMaddVibe
10-11-2006, 04:22 PM
You tell him, you've got a fired hack for an avatar! That and 1.93 will get you a Starbucks Venti!

FORD
10-11-2006, 04:34 PM
Don't worry AssVibe. Mike Malloy will be back on the air before the election :)

DrMaddVibe
10-11-2006, 05:19 PM
Yeah...The ENTIRE world can't wait to hear the "pearls of wisdom" from another assclown like you!

ULTRAMAN VH
10-12-2006, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by FORD
As opposed to someone with the name and avatar of a Japanese Transformers ripoff? :confused:

This has absolutley no worldly importance but ULTRAMAN made his TV debut back in 1966. The Transformers were created in the early eighties. So sorry Mr. Libby, but Ultraman is not a Transformer rip off.

LoungeMachine
10-12-2006, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
This has absolutley no worldly importance but ULTRAMAN made his TV debut back in 1966. The Transformers were created in the early eighties. So sorry Mr. Libby, but Ultraman is not a Transformer rip off.


LMMFAO

Glad you cleared that up for us.

38 huh?:D

ULTRAMAN VH
10-12-2006, 08:51 AM
You're up early Lounge? Maybe some therapy for those chronic erotic cream dreams featuring Johnny Depp is needed.

LoungeMachine
10-12-2006, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
You're up early Lounge? Maybe some therapy for those chronic erotic cream dreams featuring Johnny Depp is needed.

Up early?

Haven't been to bed yet.....


Again, you are in noooo position to be calling out avatars there, skippy :D

Ever read any of HST's books?

strike that.


Ever read a [non-comic] book?

ULTRAMAN VH
10-12-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Up early?

Haven't been to bed yet.....


Again, you are in noooo position to be calling out avatars there, skippy :D

Ever read any of HST's books?

strike that.


Ever read a [non-comic] book?

Just finished the Walmart Effect by Charles Fishman and I am midway through State Of Emergency By Pat Buchanan.

Nickdfresh
10-12-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Oh, how foolish of me!! Someone with an avatar of Fozzy bear getting jerked off by Kermit the frog is an authority on the justice system of Great Britain. I think the author of the above article has a better understanding of crime in the UK than Sesh.

As opposed to your Power Rangers' Underoos™ avatar?

http://www.essentialapparel.com/images/us/local/products/detail/155_dt.jpg

And Sesh is from Scotland, and has about 100 more IQ points that you do. So yes, in hindsight, I trust his judgement, since BigBlandBlunder tried posting this shit to "own" Sesh in a previous gun control thread, when Sesh pointed out that the US has about 11,000 more gun-murders per year than does the UK...

FORD
10-12-2006, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Yeah...The ENTIRE world can't wait to hear the "pearls of wisdom" from another assclown like you!

Good News, AssVibe!!



UPDATE

Hi Truthseekers.

MEDIA ALERT!

Listen to Mike Malloy as he substitutes for Jerry Springer next Thursday and Friday October 19 & 20! Check your local Springer on the Radio affiliates for broadcast times.

As for media news: Here's an article about Mike in the latest issue of Creative Loafing. Mike was also recently interviewed by salon.com for an article they're writing about Air America Radio past, present, and future, but that's been awhile now so maybe the article was shelved. Atlanta Magazine is also considering an article, or at least a blog, by Doug Monroe.

We hope to have some good news to share with you in the next few days (as well as our Air America saga), thanks for hanging in there! What a long, strange trip its been.

As always, your email, calls, and petitions are tremendously helpful. It certainly is a big boost to our morale and is noticed by potential radio outlets as well. Thank you thank you thank you so much, we'll be in touch.

Watch your back,
Malloys

10/12/06

ELVIS
10-12-2006, 06:45 PM
Ohhh...

Look out for that blog...

Dude, Malloy is a freak and he's FINISHED...