Police Want 'Drive-By' Friskings

People that make the conscious decision to hurt or kill other people, will accomplish that goal, with or without guns.

People were killing people long before guns were invented, and will continue to do so with guns out of the equation.

An armed population tends to give criminals a reason to pause before acting on impulse. That is not mutually assured destruction.

the crime & incarceration rate in the US could be interpreted different than that

as everything, it's far more complex

I'd like to know where the criminals are getting their guns. Every gun, at every gun store, and every gun show is accounted for.

Since the fast and furious debacle, I'm not convinced that the feds aren't supplying them to the bad guys in order to keep gun violence high enough to scare us into passing laws like drive by friskings, and others, that impinge on our freedom and hand them more control over our lives.

It's a hypotheses that works. Not only haven't I heard a good reason for arming the drug cartels................................members of the justice department are now pleading the 5th. What's up with that?

And of course Eric Holder is claiming that questions directed to him about the whole thing are racist attacks.

there are countless unregistered firearms in this country, what do you think the ratio of unregistered/registered is?

the issue would be under the jurisdiction of ATF, though overall department of justice is over them

digging into the exact tracking procedures used would probably shed some light on the situation, there are probably holes in the system that you could drive an armored car through

There really is no registration of firearms in the first place.

What was that paperwork I did to allow me to purchase my .40? Or my daughter to purchase her 9mm? Long guns, I agree. Those aren't even "papered" in most states. But even though the handgun paperwork is NOT for registration (so they tell us) it does in fact get stored and tracked for the purpose.

I didn't know that. I'd prefer mandatory gun registration over drive by friskings any day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/trace_report_final.pdf

Well, not taking anything from the salacious details of "Fast and Furious" Holder, I have a friend who was OC with the BATFE for nearly 4 years along the East Coast of the US. Once the Operations he was working were brought to court, with 70+ arrests, and 500+ indictments, on gun-running, he was transferred to a command in Anchorage, AK. You can imagine that the emphasis there was different (along with the pace of operations) than where he had previously served.

But the interesting thing he told me was that a resident of Anchorage was the buyer of record of numerous guns that kept showing up in the bad guy's hands, during "bad guy" operations (bank robberies, murders-for-hire, assorted other felonies and mis-demeanors), and that in each case, she reported, belatedly, that the gun had been stolen. Belatedly as in "once the gun was identified in a crime". He suspected that she was providing, but his predecessor couldn't prove it. I believe he did, via another OC operation, hastily thrown together, which I believe nailed her to the wall.

When he told me that story, I asked him whether he thought that was a likely conduit here in the lower 48, and he said he could confirm that of a certainty, but could not provide proof to me, due to ongoing investigations.

I don't know the final count, or even if its still ongoing. But it certainly makes one think about sources and methods whereby criminals can obtain guns.

They aren't as controlled as you'd believe, anyway, since his ops on the East Coast were directly against smugglers of weapons ranging from Saturday Night Specials to MAC-10/11, UZI, AK, MP, a lot of other high-end weapons whose provenance, once collected in stings, was very iffy. It doesn't matter how well our gun dealers do their due diligence, those who dare to acquire guns "from the source" and smuggle them into the US (What, you thought all the smuggling was drugs and terrorists?) will continually bring large numbers of lethal objects to be bought by our home-grown (and imported, yes) miscreants.

Actually, there are some ATF internal emails that indicate that the Fast & Furious program scandal could be used to justify tighter gun control legislation.

Now, as far as I know, that could easily be just inter-office chatter and opinion and does not necessarily mean that it was a department policy or a conspiracy.

However, it would not be the first time in history that a scandal was not used or created for a nefarious reason if there is more to these emails than what has been exposed so far. Some people do believe that the end justifies the means. Some do not.

Yeah. I don't know the facts about the internal office memos, but the BATFE people I know, who work "in the trenches" are embarassed about the whole thing, and afraid their management will survive the scandal intact enough to work something like that.

Personally, though I've been told that only a paranoic could believe they'd do that, I work on the principle that "Just because you are paranoid does not mean someone is not out to get you."

I agree that letting a good crisis go to waste is NOT something our government does, and see no reason at all to believe they'd let this one go, if the stink from the scandal isn't strong enough to water their eyes, first.

Civil discourse in government seems to be accountable for a lot of our problems throughout history. It has always seemed to me that when you have them by the "short and curlies" you need, badly, to pull HARD, and twist while you're at it, just to make them think twice before they pull another manufactured crisis out of the hat.

this sort of stuff has been going on forever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

should we just get rid of all attempts at regulating firearms?

is there a intermediate position?

I'd be real interested in knowing how the whole thing shakes out. Although I won't be surprised if it simply goes away either.

The little bit of information that's been released, provides nothing in the way of a good reason for doing it. I noticed the Mexican President has quieted right down also.........................I wonder how much that cost us?

One of the ways is illegal imports from S.America......they have everything available there...also it appears that states with weak gun control laws are suppling the criminals as well.

Here is a good pdf (download is slow) to read:-

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/trace_report_final.pdf

Ho - hum.

Kind of an old report and the violent crime rates (as well as non-violent) have been dropping significantly (and continue to) long before that report. I would counter that the things the justice department has been doing so far (i.e., enforcing current laws) have worked well.

There are plenty of laws on the books. If we just enforce them we could do a lot more. However, just like our ridiculous immigration situation, the justice department is told to look the other way. When states try to pick up the ball they get slapped down with federal law suits. Hell, even Mexico is suing Arizona over the law it passed! Ironically, Mexico's immigration laws are tougher than those proposed by Arizona.

But it is not about the laws. We have plenty of laws. The problem is our culture and lack of moral character. You can't legislate morality, but if families refuse to instill a solid moral compass for their children, then crime will be the result.

And, I will not even go into how the federal and state governments subtly work to keep people in poverty.

And, I will not even go into how the federal and state governments subtly work to keep people in poverty.

I will. And it's not subtle at all. The whole thing is a travesty. I've often wondered why I'm here...................and I think I'm getting it.

It's not about money. And it's not about violence.

What the government has done to people is a crime.

Restoring pride and self respect is priority #1. I just have to figure out how to explain it. These people are not stupid, they've been trained. Color doesn't matter.

I feel compelled to act. Not because I'm scared of the end of the world, but because government sponsored nothingness is wrong.

I'm not sure how to go about it, but I want these people to wake up in the morning with a spark in their eyes. I want them to know that they matter. I want them to know that whether they cleaned a toilet, or picked up dog poop...............they made someone else's life better............and it earns money.

They are not worthless. Far from it. I want them to know that. They do know it............but why try?

I may get killed, but someone has got to get the ball rolling.

Do I have what it takes? I think I do, but I will get a life insurance policy first.

I simply can't sit here and be a spectator anymore. Expecting someone else to make it right. It's not going to happen.

You guys feel free to give me advice.

sure that's not any revelation

everyone needs to get paid

the medium of exchange varies

each one has it's own pluses & minuses

when you make lots of money, but don't get any positive reinforcement. you spend in an effort to fill that hole

the opposite extreme where the atta boys are undeserved is equally as bad

there has to be balance, it has to be real

everyone [the exchange works both ways] involved has to say the words, in a respectful way

the goal you express is good, start by building an example [or point to one]

adapt that mode of operation to other groups/organizations

You wrote, "more guns = more crime, more death"

False. John Lott's Scholarly Study is just one of many studies that show otherwise.

On a cursory level, just look at Washington DC and Chicago. Toughest gun laws in the nation and the deadliest cites in the nation.

Almost universally, everywhere gun laws are made stricter and regulate their use by law abiding citizens there is more crime, not less.

I lost interest when I noticed that nearly every blog entry referenced fox news

I could just as easily argue the correlation between income level & crime rate

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/10/19/property-crime-rates-by-income-level

If I looked a little harder I could probably find a graph charting crime rate vs education

so what?

statistically I'm safer living where I do unarmed than in a more densely populated area armed to the teeth & conclude that the difference is the minimum lot size

the planning department & county council are to blame

as an aside I'm not afraid of guns, all manner of things that go boom are fun. I'm scoping out a area for a shooting range [archery too] as I explore my property

Crime rates does seem to go down as the number of people per acre goes down.

Our next home will be even further out of town.

"...statistically I'm safer living where I do unarmed than in a more densely populated area armed to the teeth & conclude that the difference is the minimum lot size"

No argument there, but my eldest son has the last property, about 5 acres, on the mountain side as you head up to what is pretty near pristine wilderness. But I've been very glad for my granddaughters' sakes when he (or my daughter-in-law) had guns available to deal with the three 6-foot+ Eastern Diamondback Rattlers, the bear (probably, from his size, not more than 2 years old) and his Mama (definitely more than 2 years old, she was a big-un) and assorted rabid, or at least sick enough to be a worry, other carnivorous wild-life.

I live in the city, and would love to live in the country. And consider it necessary to keep arms.

He lives in the country, and loves to live in the country. But he still considers it necessary, with good reason, to keep and bear arms.

to keep and bear arms.

Was the pun/misspelling intended?

Pun? Misspelling?

Bear | Define Bear at Dictionary.comdictionary.reference.com/browse/bearCached - SimilarYou +1'd this publicly. Undo

/bɛər/ Show Spelled [bair] Show IPA verb, bore or (Archaic ) bare; borne or born; bear·ing. verb (used with object). 1. to hold up; support: to bear the weight of ...

Or to carry.

bear verb (BRING) - definition in British English Dictionary ...dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bear_5Cached - SimilarYou +1'd this publicly. Undobear verb (BRING) - definition, audio pronunciation, synonyms and more for bear verb (BRING): to carry and move something to a place: See more in British ...

Then I personally choose to completely ignore your unsupported comments....Thanks but no thanks.

Andy is a fascinating case. Don't give him statistics with which to prove something DIDN'T happen (is that even possible?) but ask him to provide statistics that something DID happen (which he says he likes to do, and it seems, on the form to date to be true) and he will, IF it's convenient to his argument.

But then he says that he learns what he knows about America FROM TV?

At least WE (here in America) know better than to start an argument from a premise learned from TV. Even out "News" programs aren't THAT trustworthy.

C'mon, Andy, form, or at least STATE, your opinions AFTER you find out whether the data supports them. And don't just cherry-pick the sources that support what you've already decided to believe.

AND, don't just take your football and go home when the argument falls against you.

Andy has a right to that data. I just don't have the time to present it. So if Andy wants to cry foul with the argument he is correct.

No problem there.

My reference was more to the point that Andy, by his own statements, knows most of what he knows, or thinks he knows, about America, based on what he sees on TV.

And data helps, but only if you use it to first learn the truth, instead of deciding on the truth from a spurious source (TV, no?) and then finding the data that supports the argument.

Andy's okay. He's one of us that enjoys arguing. It doesn't have to make sense.

OOWWW .... OOOOOOHHHH, yeah! I guess THAT makes sense, anyway!

I have also lived in various cities in the USA over the years and still have many of the friends made.....also I keep up to date with the TV.....

How up to date are you on the UK and/or Germany? How long have you lived in either country? How many languages have you learned over the years? Tell us what you have picked up as a world traveller please.....

But many comments are made here about Hitler, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of either what went on or how it is today......have you also made such comments?

Most Americans don't want anything to change in their country......they are happy as is or protective, one or the other.....I don't know for certain which......who does?

My comment about Hitler had nothing to do with Germany, nor was it a slam on Germany.

Hitler happens to be a prime example of how those in power can gain control over entire populations of people, by convincing them that they are only interested in helping them.

A smaller example, that occured in the US, would be Charles Manson, and his ability to convince his "children" that he was their ultimate protector.

No problem. I just don't have a lot of time at the end of the month with pending shipments.

Wrong.

Police in NC set up road blocks, and stop everyone. Papers please.

This is done under the guise of keeping us safe. Every time a sweaty little police officer with bad breath gets in my face and asks for my license, registration and proof of insurance.......................it bothers me. I don't live in Germany. If I wanted to, I would move there.

Police only stop people here when they are breaking the law or suspected of breaking the law.

Bull$hit.

Here many cities shut down all roads in an out and check EVERYONE for too much alcohol, no prior warning.

Same questions as you stated....

Each time they get plenty of alcohol offenders plus a few really bad druggies and other lawbreakers.

Its done really well and in a friendly manner (maybe because I am friendly!)......been there, done that and earned the T-Shirt!!

Probably worse in Florida. There are documented cases where someone realizes they are too drunk to drive, so they just sleep in their car. Cops question them and see they have keys and arrest them for DUI.

The law is written such that if you are drunk and have car keys on you you have the possibility of driving, so you are DUI.

Someone told me when I moved down here that I should throw my keys in the field if I ever was drinking and near my car!

The law is written such that if you are drunk and have car keys on you you have the possibility of driving, so you are DUI.

Is there something wrong in that ? You seem to have come back to probability of an offence.

Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give him a bank and he can rob the world.

Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give him a bank and he can rob the world.

Now that's a good one.

Correct, but that is the way it is interpreted.

Much to my consternation, that is a truth absolute. Interpretation and application is all.

I do believe in the UK, sitting in the car drunk but WITHOUT keys, will still get you a DUI....Is that still true?

Not sure if it's an offence, or even a justifiable reason for police to stop/check. At one time there was a problem with (drunk) driver and (sober) passenger swapping seats before the police got them. Not sure of how it works, but they have closed that loophole. In other words, two people in a vehicle can't blame each other and leave a court unable to decide which is responsible.

A mate was parked up and the police called him out as to what he was doing. "Having 10 mins shut eye" (as recommended by government adverts if on a long drive). The cops could either have stopped to question him, or they could have chased somebody exceeding the speed limit. Guess which option produces better crime statistics and gives them an easier life.

Why in the world would a sober passenger allow a drunk driver to drive them around?

Why not just start off with the sober guy in the drivers seat?

And andy thinks Americans are crazy.

Noooo...2 ****heads in a car. Siren heard and they swap seats before the cops can see/prove it. In extremis, each blames the other. It was a legal loophole that existed for a while.

Gotcha.

That is part of the reason.....a small part!!

I am sure you are right that they are involved far less, but I am also sure that the carrying means you are ultra careful (really good effect!) when driving etc, BUT IF STOPPED, you are caught between a rock and a hard place, NO MATTER HOW RARELY IT HAPPENS!!!!

It only has to happen once with you and you may not be on CR4 for 6 months......or even ever!

I still see it as not being worth the possible aggravation.....you see it differently.

In Florida it is not a big deal. For traffic stops it really is a non-issue. You are not obligated to tell an officer you are carrying.

I had a friend get stopped in Ohio ad that state doe require you to alert the officer. The officer said "No problem, just don't do anything stupid" and went back to his patrol car and wrote him a speeding ticket.

I have heard of other officers in other states take the weapon from the driver and one officer actually dismantled the weapon.

We have a shooting range nearby that the police also use and talking with officers on the street I found little concern with CCWL from their point of view. The vast majority support it. They make every effort to make things safe (for everyone), but they treat people with respect. We have good officers.

Arizona recently passed a law that allows all state citizens to carry concealed or unconcealed without the need of a license. In spite of all the predictions of the return of the Wild West, that simply has not happened. If fact, that scenario has never happened anywhere where citizens are legally allowed to carry weapons.

As I have said ad nausium, the gun control issue is an emotional argument because all of the facts do not support the rhetoric.

Lastly, there are bad people and bad people that have guns. They will use them for bad things and it is important to separate the bad people from the law abiding citizens in these discussions.

Florida mandates hard time (10 years with no parole or plea bargaining) when caught with a weapon in commission of a crime. I think that is a very, very good law and the state enforces it.

The law goes further. Commit a crime with a weapon and if anyone dies in the commission of the crime, the criminals are all charged with murder. There are a number of times where two or more individuals attempt a home break in only to find an armed homeowner. One of the criminals is killed and all surviving criminals are charged with his murder - not the home owner.

Oklahoma has a similar law and an 18 year old mother shot and killed one of the intruders after they attempted to break into her home. She was on the line with police for 20 minutes while these guys kept trying to gain entry. In the end, the door came open and she was forced to fire.

As they say, when seconds count the police are just minutes away.

So, back to your point about being careful when you carry. Yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but you also have a great deal of responsibility and you take that responsibility very seriously. It makes you a better person.

Good post. Just one more thing. Prison needs to return to "hard" time. Not cruel, but I don't think 8-10 hours a day of work, 6 days a week will kill anyone. For the truly hardened criminals, jail/prison is no longer a deterrent.

We've got so many experts here, I wonder if admin would consider a "social engineering" section.

Actually the definition of personal space is different.

With family and good friends its relatively small.

With strangers or enemies its large.....

Like AH pointed out, there are warrantless searches, such as the ones conducted at the airport or entering a federal building or courthouse, that are voluntary.

Yes, there is such a thing as probable cause. Which should lead to a warrant being issued for a search. The police are not versed in Constitutional law, and will simply invent probable cause on the spot. Drive by friskings, imply that anyone can be searched, at any time, without their consent.................just because they are walking down the street.

There is a point to my mentioning of race, I just didn't explain it well enough.

Unfortunately, the criminal justice system in the US, doesn't view itself as a necessary evil. Like every other government agency, it sees itself as an enterprise..............................an enterprise that creates jobs, and must thrive and grow from one year to the next. The continuation of crime is a necessary component for that to happen.

My views on race don't matter. Yet race is indeed a factor in the overall equation.

Considering the fact that the US Justice Dept is suing the state of Arizona for enforcing federal immigration law.....................and the very same Justice Dept has been supplying untraceable weapons to the Mexican drug cartels, which have resulted in murders on both sides of the border.......................the only conclusion that I can draw, is that things like roadblocks and drive by friskings, have much less to do with stopping crime, more to do with slowly eroding the Constitutional freedom that we enjoy, and herding the population into a place where we simply get used to constantly being monitored and checked......................all under the guise of keeping us safe. Eventually, we will have ceded all control over to them. And I, for one, don't trust them. Or their motives.

GA

Interesting post for me personally, thanks.

What Kramarat wants is just about impossible to achieve at this time.....I cannot see a way to improve it either, it must be really difficult for the people concerned........

I feel it is similar to the way people are screened before boarding an aircraft, you don't want to get screened, then get in your own car/boat and drive yourself there,or just accept it as part of the deal in staying alive and flying.....

The Police everywhere are criticized if they are thought to have made an error in evidence collecting even when a culprit is 100% guilty.

They are criticized if they pull over anyone who is innocent.

They are heavily criticized if they let someone go who later commits a crime (maybe the lawyer gets them off on a technicality.....)

Ergo, they can never be right.....

People tend to change their mind about the way a possible culprit is/should be handled when their nearest and dearest get injured or killed.....Many here have never lost anybody.....yet!

You wrote, "I feel it is similar to the way people are screened before boarding an aircraft, you don't want to get screened, then get in your own car/boat and drive yourself there,or just accept it as part of the deal in staying alive and flying."

Are you comparing voluntary screening at airports to involuntary screening in open public places?

Why not, we are all on the journey of life?

Why should anyone be allowed to cut it short?

Wow. I'm not going to argue with you, since we live in different countries. I'm glad that keeping tabs on all citizens works in Germany.

In the US, or at least for me, the journey of life involves a lot more than simply living to the point of dying of natural causes, regardless of what it takes, in terms of loss of personal freedom.

Man, I really hope I'm not in a small minority.

Actually Germany is not that much different to the USA, per capita fewer car accidents, fewer murders, ID cards, fewer private firearm, fewer dead policeman, more roundabouts, more fixed road speed cameras, higher speeds (no upper speed limits on many autobahns), better cars, but otherwise similar.

The UK exercises far less control on its population, no ID cards, no forced registration of where you live, slightly higher speed limit than the USA, NO PISTOL TYPE FIREARMS for private persons (not even for the Olympic pistol team), far fewer murders, incredibly few police killed (230 in 112 years) in spite of the fact that they do their job almost 100% of the time with no firearms whatsoever (I watch Police Interceptors on UK TV last night, no guns, no Tasers, most times no sprays and they were catching drug pedlars, DUIs etc. exactly the same as the US "bad boys" on US TV "Cops", but there guns/Tasers were needed to be drawn for almost every traffic stop!!!!)

What is the difference? (I really don't know for certain 100% either, but I have my own ideas as many know!)

By the way, I am not of the opinion that there is any way that the USA can stop going down the road of its choice in any of these matters.....I personally you are stuck with what you already have, the impetus is too great for any POTUS to change.

Does Germany have an equivalent to the US 4th Amendment for their citizens?

If not, that would indeed explain your point of view better.

The Allies clubbed together after the war and wrote Germany a classic Constitution that addresses all the areas that were badly designed in documents/laws of a similar nature in other countries..... it errs on the side of political safety in all respects.

It even makes it difficult to change out the Chancellor before his time is up (after Hitler got his power in that way), in fact, they need to make that rule less restrictive, but they probably won't/can't....

Also no "right" to bear arms......you need a gun license that can be revoked (but not often enough in reality!)

Yes, it would give someone a different perspective living under those laws0, but also, cultural differences tend to make comparing one country's ideologies to another's difficult. It does not stop people from trying or proclaiming they have succeeded. ;-)

Sounds like NYC has a new toy fit for the likes of the Schutzstaffel.

Isn't there something in that pesky document, called the constitution, about this?

Something like prohibition on unreasonable search and seazure.

Ah, they're just guidlines, right?

Constitution? Piffle? Nothing to see here, folks. Move on, now, before we move you!

Well, Guidelines, sure. But, more important, it just gets in the way of PROGRESS, man! And we can't have anything stand in the way of PROGRESS! At least as it's defined by those whose job is to protect the holdings of the have, at the expense of everyone else!

Oh, wait, THAT isn't what they have to protect. They have to protect THEMSELVES against the "civilians" (meaning, also, all of us law-abiding people!) who might not want them "all up in our business" (Never mind the dialectical spellings. I'm not into "ghetto", here. But I surely find myself agreeing with the more thuggish among us more often lately!)

And, obviously, US having legal means to defend ourselves (however law-abiding we might be) is a threat to the Thugs in Blue (conceptually speaking, of course).

So, RIGHTS? They've got badges, and guns. And WE don't got no steenkin' rights!!!!

Mmmmmmm......

That sounds exciting!

And all those people were making fun of my tin foil hat....

Please scan me in the wintertime. It'll help me stay warm.

LOL!!

So if I'm behaving suspiciously they should have to obtain a "probable cause" to use this new infrared scanner? So long as they are not stopping my car or entering my home, in my opinion I don't consider this "search" as unreasonable.

If I'm carrying a legal concealed weapon, why should I care?

Bet some might look at this as the benefit it is if they (or a loved one) were putting their a** on the line to protect us. They can and should legally stop and search us for probable cause anyway, so why not make it safer for them?

This is not math or physics. It is subjective. Where does the line get crossed? Personally, I think that it is already crossed, but many people would rather surrender more and more of their freedom for security.

That is a unique attribute of humans. Whereas animals will choose freedom over security every time.

U NO WHO, what behavior would you consider suspiciously? Just walking down the street that does not normally have a lot of foot traffic? The way your dressed?

Ok you are carrying legal, the LEO don't know that. If they scan you without you knowing and see the weapon. You think they won't stop you? Most likely there going to treat you as a felony stop. UNTIL you have had a cop put there gun in your face YOU WILL CARE!

Many years ago I was stopped in NC for speeding "I was and young" In TN from where I was you could open your door and or get out. In NC that got me in a BIG problem. "I did not know there had been a rash of cop shootings". Anyway what went from a ticket wound up being a search, hauled in and going before the judge.

Your last paragraph . Agreed it can be a tool for good if used properly Not random scans though. Most but not all are not going to put there @ss on the line for us.(i know i'm may be painting with a broad brush but i've known and dealt with a lot over the years. out of that i'v only had 3 that did not treat you like a criminal"."also the police do not have a duty to protect the people". I don't fault them for wanting to protecting themselves though. If they have a probable cause for a stop, then ok. Beyond that NO.

We have the US Cops program on the TV, that is enough to scare the pants off you.....Its a completely different mentality.

Anyone with a handgun in the UK, goes to jail. Period. Just for having a hand gun is illegal......now that is a great law.

We have a similar law in Florida - commit a crime with a gun, a gun on your person, a gun in your car - you get 10 years in prison - no plea deals, no time off for good behavior, you serve your time.

The same applies with any other weapon. My friend was car jacked by a man wielding a knife. Cut up his protection dog pretty badly (the dog had his day with the thug, too). The thug is serving 10 years. Dog is doing okay.

Good law considering the BATF gives away weapons to the underworld over here.

In the UK, just having a gun gives a fixed sentence. You don't have to use it, or even have ammunition for it.....

Is that a good law?

To me, it seems to reinforce the concept that law abiding citizens are simply incapable of doing the right thing, if given a choice. Like AH pointed out earlier, the places in the US in which carry/conceal permits are commonplace, enjoy a very low crime rate. Regardless of the punishment, people that have no respect for themselves, the law, or life, will always have guns. Taking them away from the responsible people will only make things worse.

While I completely understand your point, another thing that the US government fails to understand, is that controlling a population of 10 million in a relatively small area is much easier than controlling a population of 350 million on a massive continent. They continue to work on it though. Perhaps one day they will be able to guarantee a safe walk to the park...........................it's a day I dread more than being mugged.

If your 10 million was meant to be the UK, you are way off........

I do believe that the UK will be today around 60 million now against the USA of 312 Million.

Population densities are far higher in the UK than the US. Average of 660 in the UK to 83 in the USA, persons per square mile........around a factor of 8 x higher.

I didn't do the research to come up with actual numbers. You're right. I didn't feel it was necessary to make my point.

Unfortunately, I'm also probably incorrect in my assumption that all people are inherently good, and if given the opportunity and freedom to do so, will strive to achieve greatness. Not necessarily measured by financial wealth, but to be the best they can be, at whatever it is they choose to do. I suppose it's silly of me to think, that just because that attitude built America, that it will continue.

Bring on the cameras and 'drive by' friskings............................apparenty we have become a society that is incapable of decent behavior on an individual basis. It's probably true................and the governments of civilized nations are striving to make it truer by the day. As true as it may be, I'll never be happy about it. They will have to drag me kicking and screaming into an existence where freedom and equality amounts to sameness and government distribution of equal shares of happiness to the populace. Perhaps I am just crazy. Losing my given ability to screw up and fail on my own does not put a smile on my face...................................but hey, at least I'll have food....................maybe free healthcare too. It ain't all bad.

Maybe I'll cash my welfare check, buy a tall beer in an eco-friendly container and take a walk to the park. I'll know that I will be safe from both verbal and physical assaults.

Now that's real freedom.

Even the criminal " if given the opportunity and freedom to do so, will strive to achieve greatness", but it's up to folks like you and me to convince them that achieving THEIR form of greatness, requiring as it does that we give them what they feel defines their greatness, ain't gonna happen. The truth is that MY greatness is antithetical to that desired by the criminal who defines himself as great when he can take away what I have, by any means possible. He DOESN'T define himself as great if it costs him his life. But, I define myself as great when I earn my own way, and keep what I've earned.

Can't have both, but I won't give him what he wants, and sometimes I have to have, keep, carry, and be willing to use, the same tools he is willing to have, carry, and use.

What separates us is that I will NOT use mine to take away what is rightfully someone else's, and the criminal will.

And to stop that, I will continually defend my right to carry the tools necessary to secure MY freedom and safety, and that of those around me.

Of course you're right.

Without writing an entire book on the subject, I'll just say, that I think the vast majority of "criminals" in the US, have become criminals due to the desperation that has been created by well intentioned, government sponsored social programs.

In a nutshell: Women are rewarded for having children out of wedlock............the more kids, the more benefits. Marriage equals a loss of benefits. And males become ineligible when they hit the age of 18. It's become an unmitigated and self perpetuating disaster.................across the country.

In my mind, had the government not created this specific set of circumstances, far less people would turn to crime as a way to make money, and there's a good chance that this conversation about drive by frisking would not be taking place.

When the government creates legions of violent criminals, and then dreams up countermeasures that affect all of us..........................I don't know? I find it suspect.

except the crime rate is falling, not rising

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0524/US-crime-rate-is-down-six-key-reasons

& once again a different topic

Absolutely! Which supports the argument that more laws and tools are not necessarily required.

So, in theory, we should be starting to cut spending and cutting back on the budgets of those that are charged with fighting crime. That won't happen.

I've got another theory that they fail to mention......................it's that criminals have become so nasty and insidious, that reporting is down. If the victim of a crime is able to walk away, and the perpetrator promises to kill them if they call the cops....................well, knowing that the prison system has become a revolving door, cakewalk for the bad guys, I would probably count my lucky stars that I'm alive, and not say a word. There are way too many of them that will follow through on the promise, to not take it seriously.

While it may seem off topic, or politically incorrect to suggest that the government's "war on poverty" has given rise to the cesspools of dependency and crime that have made the idea of drive by friskings, and other draconian measures sound palatable, it doesn't make it untrue.

that's another nice story, is there any supporting data for your hypothesis?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_statistics

Under 39 percent of all rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement (Shannan M. Catalano, 2005). Sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes, with males being the least likely to report a sexual assault (RAINN, 2005).

Here's one. I'll look around some more.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/31/nyregion/nypd-leaves-offenses-unrecorded-to-keep-crime-rates-down.html?pagewanted=all

http://gothamist.com/2011/12/31/cops_apparently_not_in_a_hurry_to_r.php

http://calcasa.org/education/victims-of-crime-still-unwilling-to-report/

That's funny. The article on NYC cops not recording crimes due to departmental pressure to keep statistics low, sounds a lot like teachers artificially inflating test scores for their students. I wonder if it's union pressure, or just a money thing.

So here we are..................nothing but good news! Kids are getting smarter, and crime is on the decrease. How convenient. It'll probably get mentioned in the state of the union address tonight. Yippie!!!!!

AH, I LIKE your "Castle Defense" laws, and especially like the fact that they apply to you IN your vehicle. I can see that your state has it down right. Throw the book at the criminal who uses a weapon to commit a crime. Protect the individual who is law abiding and protects him/herself with a weapon from any repercussion. Find out which is which, and act accordingly. Criminals will be forced to consider whether they want to run the risk of either LIVING in prison for a while, or maybe NOT LIVING ANYWHERE ever again!

I'm convinced that will slow many a miscreant way down, and protect many from even needing to defend themselves.

And the law cannot/will not/is not responsible for defending us, so its good when we are allowed to do it ourselves.

I agree. Screw up with a weapon and you go down hard. Additionally, we have one of the best Castle Defense laws and Florida has gone further to strengthen them. The result has been peace, not the wild west as some would have predicted.

Andy. As you know, I enjoy a good debate.

You're right. The US cops program is pretty darned scary. The people you see in that show were created by a system that tells them that they are not responsible for their actions............................they are victims of bad parenting, an unfair world, etc. It's called the welfare system.

This is about much more than guns. We are in the process of convincing people that striving to be a financial success is evil. We have a government that is telling us that risk is not worth the trouble. Why try, when they can promise us that the worst that can ever happen, once we have ceded all control, is that we still have a place to live and food on the table.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that while a life without any risk may be safe and comfortable, it's just not any fun. I probably could have become a mail man, or gotten a nice government job in which my entire existence was pre written, with cost of living increases and a nice pension..................................but that's just not me.

I want the freedom to roll the dice, take risks, start and run my own business, succeed or fail on my own, etc. It makes me feel alive. When the government is making promises to punish anyone that makes $250K a year or more through taxation..................well, I guess there's not much point in trying, is there?

I feel as if I'm quickly becoming the minority, and it makes me sick.

You wrote:-

I feel as if I'm quickly becoming the minority, and it makes me sick.

You are, you are all getting shot, knifed, run over and bludgeoned........

Looking at the state you call home, I'm not surprised. I live in Virginia, where it is legal to own and carry. And I do both. I do NOT want the police who don't like me to exercise my legal right to decide for themselves, on a whim, that I am "acting suspiciously", and conduct a surreptitious search (with no one's knowledge but their own) and then decide, based on the results of that search, that it's time to "take me down" for my own safety.

And, regardless of what you may believe, many of my law enforcement friends, with whom I shoot often, consider that to be too likely for comfort.

But you, who live in Maryland, actually are silly enough to TRUST your law enforcement agencies, despite the corruption that surfaces daily in YOUR government agencies.

I am not willing to give up my freedom, and my ability to defend my own safety, to trust an agency which willing states that it cannot defend me, and which is protected from any necessity to do so by a Supreme Court which has ruled that it has no responsibility to protect nor defend me. You may. I won't. And as long as that is the case, I won't willingly give up my freedom from "Unreasonable Search and Seizure" to make you, nor anyone else, more comfortable.

Until all the suicide bombers and terrorists can be stopped and taken out before anyone else dies, I have no problems with being so scanned. I won't even notice it anyway......

Anyone who lost a friend in ANY criminal or terrorist action/activity that might have been thwarted by such technology will sleep easier and happier in his bed once this device is in use....I know I will.......

Great technology.

The line is set by the bad Guys, not by law and order.......or modern technology.

Talk to the families of the suicide bomber victims in the middle east!! Ask them what they think!! Don't just listen to "good 'ol Boys in a bar room".....

Ask families living in housing areas terrorised by gangs and gang warfare what they think if the armed punks can be identified and removed...

Well, an absolute police state would stop essentially all violence. Why stop at simply scanning? "Papers, please!"

Would you feel more comfortable in such a state? If not, why not?

Where do you draw the line between anarchy and tyranny?

As in many countries, violence is on the increase, guns are carried out of site and quickly used, so I am happy that there is such technology becoming freely available.....the future approaches!

I lived in the Philippines for a few weeks about 40 years ago, it was like the wild west with cars and jeeps.......once was enough......but it was still safer than some parts of some US cities are today.....maybe if guns were not so available in some countries, the technology might not have been so hard driven as it appears it is? Who knows!!

The UK is probably the leading country with CCTV, many don't like it, but it reduces crime where it is openly (always) used and has actually managed to catch a few baddies as well.....many were/are against it, usually the ones who eventually get caught.....if you don't carry a gun, knives or explosives, why worry?

I was in a Ramada Inn in Florida many years ago (1986 I believe) when a bullet went through 6 rooms, lucking not hitting anyone (not my room, I was on a different floor), the cheap dry walling that many US buildings use was partly to blame, in most European buildings it would have been stopped at the first wall........

Do not forget that on such subjects everyone has their own choice as to if they find such things acceptable or not......I find it acceptable, you don't, end of story.....don't jump on me, jump on the legislators....!

But do not forget, I certainly cannot influence what the law enforcement buy and use here, let alone in the USA!!!

I suspect that you can't either!!!Maybe that is what bugs you......don't hold me responsible, because I'm not.....

I just don't panic about stuff I cannot change either, totally pointless......not that I feel a need to change this anyway, I actually like it!!

Have a nice safe day.

My questions are not a rant, but genuine questions.

Sorry to hear that violence is on the rise in some places. It is on the decline in the US and has been for some time. Curiously, the areas in the US where crime is lowest is also where gun laws are the least restrictive. Areas where gun ownership is restricted heavily or prohibited are the murder capitals of the US. Go figure. However, I digress. I just wanted your take on freedom versus police state security.

Sometimes I rant, but you are correct that the less restrictive the gun laws...........the less violent crimes. It's an undeniable fact.

Let's assume for a minute that all crime stops..................globally. Let's also assume that all crime stops for an entire year.

The logical conclusion, is that it would be time to start dismantling the crime fighting, criminal justice system that we have built. Would that happen?

No.

New bogeymen would be created and marketed through the ad campaign to convince us that we needed to be protected.

The people in charge do not seek to end crime. Crime is a necessary tool that must be utilized to gain control of the masses.................................the ultimate goal.

A certain degree of crimes..................even horrible ones, must be allowed to happen......................for the sake of the greater good.

A few sacrificial lambs here and there will eventually lead to everyone being safe...............................at least those of us that are doing no wrong.

"Control your destiny or someone else will!" -- Jack Welch

Very appropriate saying that popped up when I posted my last comment.

Just because a thing can be done, doesn't mean it should be used with no restrictions...

some in the world of law enforcement, would like to expand the definition of probable cause as much as possible, this sort of technology could be viewed as an attractive nuisance in this regard

better than all the hand wringing or just abdicating any pretense of privacy,

Under what circumstances should the police be able to use this technology?

Nicely said. I think this technology should be bound by the 4th Amendment as I see it as a form of unreasonable search and seizures. As the title of this whole post put it - "Drive-By Frisking".

To me it is essentially the same as physically searching each and every person a law officer wants without consent

It is no different if metal detectors or TSA style body scanners were installed at every public place and there is no way to walk around them. In this regard you have no choice in the matter, you are searched with or without your consent.

When you go to a private building or a government building that has these scanners you are entering with consent to a search. You have the option of not entering.

That option is has been erased with the "Drive-By Frisking" and in my opinion violates the 4th Amendment.