Originally posted by Ugg
Most of the states with low crime rates and little or no gun legislation are rural not urban. Concealed weapons invariably lead to more violence not less and it has been proven numerous times that homeowners who own guns are more likely to be injured by their own gun during a robbery than those who don't own guns. The idea that guns lead to safety is naive.
There are very few states now without CCW, and they all have high crime rates (violent). Their rates are increasing at an alarming pace, not staying steady or dropping.
35 States have right-to-carry, 9 States have restricted/limited issuance (California, New York), and 6 States are right infringed (Ohio, Illionis).
I have no idea where you get your info on concealed weapons leading to more violence, there is no proof to support that assumption. Please provide some kind of link to this information. Everyone who made similar statements about CCW before it was implemented in their states have been proven wrong. As far as the homeowners, though I haven't seen any proof to this, I will agree if you're going to own one you better know how to use it. Same with driving a car, there is a responsibility on the owner's part. Not every situation calls for it, and I never said anything about it leading to safety...hell, you can easily find well over 200 things (everyday items) in a normal household to kill someone with if you were that desperate to. It is however, a right that can and should not be infringed upon.
Additional police on the streets do little to deter crime in those areas where it is most prevalent. Take those officers off the streets and the crime rate drops substantially. Clinton was instrumental in getting those guys out of their cars and onto bikes and their feet.
You really need to reread that and make sure it's what you meant to say. If so, prove it with some supporting facts. Maybe the way it was worded is the problem, but in the first part you say more cops on the streets is useless, but the second part that more is what helped. Were you meaning out of cars and on slower, more visable methods of patrolling?
The headlines of the last few days show that welfare rolls are substantially lower than during any previous economic downturn. This is due largely to those Clintonian waivers. The states have proven very effective, creative and compassionate in revising welfare.
More could have, and should have been done. Yes, progress has been made, but it's a band-aid...not a cure.
Charter schools are a mixed bag. Some work and some don't but they are public not private. The vouchers that gw & co. would like to put in place would clearly destroy public schools. Charter schools are different in every state but those that do work show once again that education is most successful when the community gets to make its own choices about it, not when the Fed. Govt. does. Bush' "No Child Left Behind" has only made schools worse, not better.
This system would also allow parents to choose a parochial school (Catholic or other religeous entity) and have it funded in full, or part, by tax money. NOT ACCEPTABLE. I honestly think we should do away with parochial schools, and do a major reform on public schools in general. Something based on the European school system as in France. Also, as a FYI, I spent Grades 1 thru the end of 7 at Catholic schools, 8 thru 12 at public.
My biggest complaint about Clinton was NAFTA. It was too much too soon, has devastated employment in the US, Mexico and Canada and has only succeeded in benefitting big business and the transportation industry. Bush has not proven to be any better though.
Couldn't put it any better on NAFTA.
