One might assume Mr. Brown thinks there should be some “common sense” restrictions on our rights guaranteed by the First Amendment:

In a highly unusual instance of a United Nations official singling out an individual country for criticism, Mr. Malloch Brown said that although the United States was constructively engaged with the United Nations in many areas, the American public was shielded from knowledge of that by Washington’s tolerance of what he called “too much unchecked U.N.-bashing and stereotyping.”

“Much of the public discourse that reaches the U.S. heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News,” he said.

Mr. Brown forgets that in the United States we are not subjects of the politicians or “The Crown”.  Here the politicians are the servants of the citizens.  But I guess that is understandable, the politicians here frequently forget it also.  This is why we have the Second Amendment–our other communication tool (as Ry once described the pistol on my belt next to my cellphone).

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for bringing this to my attention.

The National Firearms Assocation (Canada) explains why the anti-gun bigots at the UN are nuts:

As you have probably noticed, the UN methods of “eliminating the illegal circulation of small arms and light weapons” have been quite unsuccessful. This paper explains some of the reasons why that is so.

…

The Programme of Action suffers, in this writer’s opinion, from a prejudice. It seems to have been written by someone who assumed that it is the availability of a weapon that causes violent criminal acts. That is an untrue assumption. If it were true, every nation would have to mount continuous campaigns to deter husbands and wives from quarrelling in the kitchen, because knives are readily available in every kitchen. That is not necessary because ordinary people do not become murderous criminals simply because a weapon is easily available.

…

Now let us look at the Programme of Action. It is unfortunate, but true, that attempts to deal with complex situations are usually coloured by the type of expertise available. In this case, the type of expertise available when the Programme of Action was drafted and then adopted was apparently administrative expertise, not likely to produce successful ways of dealing with situations that range from quasi-legal to flatly illegal. Administrative methods are good for dealing with legal transactions by persons firmly determined to stay within the law. They are remarkably poor at dealing with illegal ownership, illegal procuring, illegal sales, illegal trades of goods for goods, illegal shipments, smuggling, and other illegal transactions.

…

So–what are the actual effects of laws based on the British theory and the American theory, as opposed to the anticipated effects, now that we have had a few years to study them?

In the U.S., the latest FBI annual report statistics showed that the overall national violent crime rate for 2004 had decreased for the thirteenth consecutive year (starting in 1991), and had reached a 30-year low. As a check, the latest Bureau of Justice statistics showed that the overall national violent crime rate had reached a 32-year low in 2004.

The FBI data also show that in 2004, murder rates hit a 39-year low, robbery rates a 37-year low, and aggravated assault rates a 20-year low. All forms of violent crime have been steadily decreasing since 1991. Between 1991 and 2004, violent crime declined by 39 per cent, murder by 44 per cent, rape by 24 per cent, robbery by 50 per cent, and aggravated assault by 33 per cent.

Those are very good numbers, and the period from 1991 to 2004 has also been one with a steadily increasing number of states that feature mandatory concealed carry laws. Additionally, the American approach has been particularly good for women, as women are the preferred (even if not the most numerous) targets of violent criminals. Knowing that some women are able to protect human life from criminal violence has had a noticeable effect, reducing crimes against women. Causing violent criminals to fear women results in a desirable check on violent crime rates, as Paxton Quigley says in her excellent book, Armed and Female.

The British picture is quite different.

The British Home Office Statistical Bulletin, “Crime in England and Wales, 2004/2005,” tells us that their national violent crime rate increased by 109 per cent from 1995 to 2004/2005.

Between 2003/2004 and 2004/2005, reports of “threat or conspiracy to murder” went up by 31 per cent in the “top nine [police] forces (those that did the best reporting)” and up 3 per cent in “other forces.” Less serious woundings reports went up 25 per cent from the top nine and 12 per cent from the other forces. Possession of weapons reports went up 13 per cent from the top nine and 0 per cent from the other forces. Harassment reports went up 58 per cent in the top nine and 22 per cent in the other forces. Reports of sexual offences increased 17 per cent in 2004/2005, but this figure was confused by a change in the definition of “sexual offence” that occurred within the two reporting periods.

“Crime involving firearms” has been rising steadily since 1998/1999 (more than doubling), in spite of the total “elimination” of handguns imposed by a total ban on the private ownership and possession of handguns in 1995. One conclusion is inescapable: British violent criminals are experiencing no difficulty in acquiring and using as many illegal handguns as they want.

Read those figures and draw your own conclusions. In this writer’s view, the American approach is working, and the British idea is failing.

Give yourself thirty minutes to an hour to read the whole thing.

From Alan Korwin–tactics that work in the fight to defend the right to keep and bear arms.  As he says, “Easy, fun, and it helps save the planet by golly!”

Maybe the TV news people left something out that would make things a little more clear but the way it’s spelled out now Mayor Kiss doesn’t make a lick of sense:

“From the perspective of being mayor,” he said, “I haven’t looked at public safety in terms of whether there are initiatives we would like to take. At least an element of that is that we’ve had two recent shootings in which handguns were involved.”

Kiss said it was possible that Burlington might seek a charter change related to guns or a member of the Legislature from the city might propose a bill.

…

Despite the likelihood of opposition, Kiss said it was timely to talk about handguns, given the recent shootings. “We could see where that went, without prejudging the process,” Kiss said. I don’t want to be afraid of bringing up issues that are sensitive.”

He doesn’t want to be afraid of bring up issues that are sensitive?  Okay then Mister Mayor, why don’t you bring up reinstating slavery?  Never mind that should he start pushing for such a thing I would probably be among those looking for a clear shot to put a .30 caliber hole in his cranial vault.  That is if he wasn’t almost immediately impeached and unable to get any job with a higher status than shoveling pig manure.  It would make about as much sense.  Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and among the most relaxed gun laws.  Why would he want to change what is working well?

I have Just One Question for you Mayor Kiss.

He didn’t answer Just One Question when I ask the other day.  He didn’t even look at it (I checked my logs).  He knows what he wants to believe and that’s all that is important.  And he calls Chris Cox evil?  What can be more evil than insisting we ignore the facts and do things his way?  The way that has enabled the murder of at least 60 million people by their own governments in the 20th century?  His name is Michael Daly and he says:

Staring down barrel of NRA’s evil lobbyist

The devil does not wear Prada.

The Devil wears an off-the-rack suit and tie and speaks with a honeyed Southern accent.

That much remained clear yesterday as you gazed at the congealed blood on W. 22nd St., where four more New Yorkers had been shot with an illegal gun. The figure who immediately leapt to mind was the guy in the suit you had seen over the weekend at the National Rifle Association’s annual gathering in Milwaukee.

His name is Chris Cox, and he is the NRA’s chief lobbyist. He leads the charge to block Bloomberg’s effort in Washington to get the federal legislation that is the only way to stem the flow of illegal guns into New York.

Considering the 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and the 14th amendment says the Bill of Rights apply to the states and cities as well as the Feds, just what is an illegal gun?  Michael Daly has mental problems.

They have done all they could (and failed) with guns and crimes committed with guns and now they are working on knives.  A “knife amnesty” program is now underway in the UK.  Can you believe it?

A NATIONWIDE knife amnesty aimed at reducing knife crime comes into force today.

For the next five weeks people will be able to hand in offensive weapons such as flick knives, butterfly knives and swords without fear of reprisal.

Secure bins will be left in police stations and other public places such as supermarkets, schools and youth clubs, to encourage people to hand in their weapons.

It is hoped the amnesty, which ends on June 30, will lead to fewer people carrying knives.

…

 

Kent Police’s Assistant Chief Constable Dave Ainsworth said: “We obviously want to reduce the number of knives and lethal weapons on our streets that are designed to kill or maim, such as combat knives, flick knives and swords.

“Knives can damage and destroy lives, leaving families and communities devastated.”

…

Wrong.  People with knives damage and destroy lives.  And they don’t need knives to do it.  These people have severe mental problems.

 

“In a survey, 46 per cent of youngsters in Newcastle said they carried around a knife with them. That’s a horrifying statistic.

“We have got to get the message through: this is illegal, it is very, very dangerous. You could end up yourself being injured or, worse still, on impulse inflicting some mortal injury on a friend.”

I remember getting a Christmas present from my teacher when I was in the first grade and six years old.  It was a knife and all the boys in the classroom got them.  One guy cut his finger a few weeks later but that was the only problem that occurred and that was minor.  The people in the U.K. are totally bonkers.

Yet another example of how our right to not be searched without a court order are being violated without any benefit:

CBS4) DENVER Nearly 5 years after Sept. 11, 2001, how difficult would it be for terrorists to get explosives aboard a plane? With billions being spent on airport security, one would hope it would be nearly impossible. But what CBS4 found may have you questioning whether we are really safer.

CBS4 demonstrated 3 years ago how explosive chemicals placed on luggage, a computer and a person could pass through security. The CBS4 Investigates wanted to see what, if anything, has changed. CBS4 began the test by purchasing those same explosive chemicals.

…

After this, the CBS4 team placed even more of the chemicals on the bag. Investigators also packed a lead-lined sack designed to protect film from X-rays. Then an electronic object was placed beneath it. This was to see if security would open the luggage to see what the lead bag was hiding.

The team then went to Denver International Airport.

A CBS4 employee who carried the bag with her purchased a one way ticket in hopes of being placed in the security line for extra screening. She was not.

The bag was placed on the conveyor and passed through the X-ray machine. The Transportation Security Administration screener spotted the lead-lined bag and wanted a second look. They let it through. They did not open it to see what was beneath the lead lined bag. And no one seemed to notice all that powder.

From watching the video I’m pretty sure I know what powdered chemical they used for the tests.  If I am correct there is no way the explosive detectors can flag it as dangerous without generating false positives on a very high percentage of the passengers.  It’s an unsolvable problem with the current paradigm.  If people wish to increase security, rather than just make some people feel good, they need to switch paradigms.  Here are my suggestions for increasing airplane security.