Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ptsfa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!ptsfa!rob
From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Various & Sundry
Message-ID: <521@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 14:09:12 EST
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.521
Posted: Thu Mar 21 14:09:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 03:21:06 EST
References: <1218@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco
Lines: 220
Summary: 

In article <1218@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes:
>     Tom, this just shows that Canada has the same problem the US does.
>Canada can control neither its borders nor its criminals.  Anti-gun laws 
>only serve to kill people.  For example, in New York City, which has
>the strongest anti-gun laws in the nation, the crime rate is outrageous.
>It isn't even safe to ride the subway ( :-) ).  Massachusetts has one of
>the highest crime rates in the nation.  But in New Hampshire, where every
>citizen is authorized to carry a firearm, the crime rate is negligible.

I'm not sure I see how that follows. It is not obvious that just because
NYC has the strongest anti-gun law in the nation and a high crime rate
that the former causes the latter. Maybe there is a correlation between
crime rates and anti-gun laws, but a perhaps more plausible explanation
of the correlation would be that the people that live in high crime
municipalities and states are thereby strongly motivated to support such
laws. A fairly rural state like New Hampshire is bound to have a fairly
low crime rate, and so the citizens/legislators see little reason to
pass anti-gun legislation.

I think that IF there is a correlation between crime and anti-gun laws,
my hypothesis is much more plausible. Can you offer any evidence to
support your hypothesis? 
>
>     What is justice is to allow law-abiding citizens the right to protect 
>themselves, and let the criminals be aware that if they are shot while
>committing a crime, they have no recourse against their victim.  Here in
>the US, the courts are ruling that the individual citizen is NOT entitled
>to police protection, and that he responsible for his own safety.  Now,
>how can a citizen be responsible for his safety without the authority
>to do so?  How can a citizen protect himself without arms?
>
>        
>>Obviously we worship hold different religious views if that's your idea
>>of heaven.  However, we *are* working on it.  But we still need to 
>>(1) Boost our crime rate by an incredible amount.  Especially our violent
>>    crime rate.  I'm afraid it's just way below the American standard.
>
>     Be grateful.  If we didn't have criminals, we wouldn't need guns
>to protect ourselves.  Besides, if we didn't have the potential for 
>governmental criminality, we probably wouldn't even need rifles.
>
>>(2) Give everybody handguns so that we can kill each other accidently much
>>    faster.       [Guns don't kill kids.  Kids kill kids.]
>
>     99.7% of all handguns in the US are NOT involved in a crime or accident.
>99.3% of all firearms in the US are NOT used in crime or and accident.
>
>     Stupid parents kill kids.
>
>>(3) Up our racial hatred level by a massive factor.
>
>     It takes two to tango.
>
>>(4) Increase our knee-jerk anti-communist reaction by several orders of
>>    magnitudes.
>
>     Now you're talking.
>
>>(5) Increase our willingness to let the poor starve.
>
>     The US "Food Stamps"  program has the largest budget ever, this year.
>And the "poor" are still complaining.  The people who need help the most
>never seem to get it.  Here in the US, we're so concerned about "refugees"
>that we fail to take care of our own first.  I say get rid of the Council
>on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, build up North American
>industry again, and let people earn an honest work.
>
>>(6) Build massive amounts of ghettos
>
>     "Ghettoes" build themselves.  My family was always "poor" because of
>health problems.  We never went hungry, both my parents were always around,
>and we were taught respect for other people's property.  Poverty does not
>always mean a lack of money.
>
>>(7) Increase our arson rate.  (Is North Tonawanda still standing?)
>
>     The arsonist you will always have with you.
>
>>(8) Increase our defense spending.
>
>     Great.  Canada does not have to worry about "big ticket" strategic
>weaponry.  Spend it on the condition that weaponry is manufactured entirely
>in Canada, to benefit Canadian workers.
>
>>(9) Increase our dollar.   (Oh well...)
>
>     The problem withthe Canadian dollar is that it is tied too much to the 
>American F.R.A.U.D.  (Federal Reserve Accounting Unit Dollar).  Go back to
>a gold or silver standard.
>
>>>I also know some people from up there who would LIKE to see themselves become
>>>part of the good ole US of A.!!  That's just so you don't think I'm a crank
>>>of one.  I understand the provences are not getting along so well with the
>>>central gov.,eh?  The provinces too.
>>>Ken Arndt
>
>     I do believe things are a little better now.  The US and Canada should
>both strive to maintain their own sovereignty
>
>>  In a country of 25 million, you get every type of crack-pot.  Besides,
>>have they ever *lived* in the States?  The idea of being fearful of walking
>>in any part of a city (eg. Toronto, pop. 3Meg) is so unreal, that they might
>>not realize this seems to be the case in several American cities.
>
>     The concept of respect for other people's property has a lot to do with
>a city's crime rate.  A person who would vandalize a subway car, smash a
>store window, or take a car for a joy ride is the same person who would snatch
>a purse, mug somebody, or commit a rape.  (A couple of years ago, in the 
>small city where I live, a 16-year old boy was given 20-to-life for
>breaking-and entering, petty larceny, and attempted murder on a 93-year-old
>woman.  If we had stiffer sentencing of violent juveniles, we would reduce
>the crime rate dramatically.)
>
>>It doesn't
>>fall to us to support gov'ts killing their own citizens to protect themselves
>>against the communist menace.  Maybe it has to be done by someone (Although
>>I have my doubts) but I am thankful it will never have to be us.
>
>     Fear not, guys.  We still owe you for the assistance in Iran.  You got us
>stuck in between you and Mexico.  Take a look at a map sometime, and count
>the dominoes between Nicaragua and Canada.  You'd better pray we can stop
>the swarming hoards at the Rio Grande, so you won't have to do it at the
>St. Lawrence.
>
>>   In case this article sounds too anti-American, my apologies, but Mr. Arndt
>>*does* have the ability to say things in need of strong rebuttal.  I am
>>certainly glad that the USA has chosen to be the world super-power.  It
>>means that the rest of us don't have to be totally ruthless to survive.
>>And if history shows anything, either you have to be totally ruthless,or
>>under the protection of a country that is.  The States have my gratitude,
>>as long as they don't force us to become them.  [  Tom West]
>
>     My apologies also, if I sound anti-Canadian.  What we need is better
>cooperation between the two nations to solve what difficulties we have.
>
>
>>Surely agreement by treaty is better than these bully-boy tactics?
>>Reciprocity in international relations is more than just courtesy.
>>The United Nations has never been seen as a place to supercede national
>>governments or laws, but it is a place where they can talk together,
>>and with luck work together to make the world a better place.
>>Over the decades (or centuries, if we are so lucky), it just might
>>become a world forum with some authority to back up its decisions
>>(e.g. a standing peace-keeping force that could break up little
>>quarrels among neighbours, or that could go and reinforce the troops
>>of a country being invaded).
>>Actually, I suppose the dream of all mankind would at heart be that
>>the world COULD be made one United Nation -- and the lion shall lie
>>down with the lamb, and all that.  National chauvinism is unfortunately
>>only one of the reasons it probably won't happen for a long time,
>>if ever.[Martin Taylor]
>
>     I'm proud to be an American chuavinist.  The United Nations is nothing
>more than a hotbed of Communist infiltrators, formed by Communist conspirators,
>to serve the purposes of international Communism.  The lion only wants to
>lay down with the lamb in its belly.  Why is it that American blood gets shed
>every time some little banana republic has a revolt?  We get engaged in so
>many petty quarrels that we fail to see the real issues, the problems
>here at home that are destroying our own society.
>
>>In article <709@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes:
>>>I read in our local paper that a man was convicted of spreading rumors
>>>for the publication of his book calling the concentration camps of Nazi
>>>Germany a hoax.  Is it true that you can be arrested and tried for
>>>spreading rumors in Canada?  If we had that law here, we would have to
>>>designate several states criminal colonies to hold all the convicts!
>>[:-/-)]
>
>>  It is true that a man was convicted of knowingly spreading false 
>>information likely to cause racial hatred.  This false information
>>was that the concentration camps in Germany were a hoax.  I believe
>>his sentence was for a few months.  He is currently trying to appeal,
>>but will in all probability lose.
>>  It is dangerous to be publicly racist in Canada.  (Thank goodness.)
>[Tom West]
>
>     Ernst Zundel was acquitted on one count and convicted on a second.
>The big issue in the trial was not the correctness of his information,
>but rather his freedom of speech and press.  The government was forced
>by the Antidefamation League to prosecute, because a single individual
>refused to drop the case.  The League really didn't want the case tried
>because they didn't want the man to get publicity.  (You can see why.)
>
>     Zundel was acquited of the charge concerning a publication that he
>himself wrote.  He was convicted for publishing a 32-page pamphlet that
>was written by a British author.  Barring appeal, the conviction carries
>a maximum two-year imprisonment.
>
>     Some interesting points were raised, including the fact that the
>judge failed to take judicial notice that the Holocaust actually took
>place thus placing the burden of proof that it took place on the plaintiff.
>Scientific and forensic evidence was presented by Zundel that it never took
>place.  Alleged eyewitnesses to the event were time and again proven
>to be telling falsehoods.
>
>     This is exactly the thing that Constitutional reformers want for the
>United States.  They don't want anybody to go digging around in Orwellian
>Memory Holes, so they can spout only their version of history.  Granted
>some horrible things took place during World War 2.  But at least let's
>get at the truth, whatever it may be.
>
>Respctfully submitted,
>
>Don Black


-- 


Rob Bernardo, Pacific Bell, San Francisco, California
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob

	    	       _^__
	     	     ~/ \_.\
        _           ~/    \_\
      ~/ \_________~/   
     ~/  /\       /\ 
       _/  \     /  \
     _/      \ _/    \ 
              \      /