Taurus689: You're right Andre. In a moment of weakness, I was trying not to appear totally unreasonable. Mea Culpa.
For years we've been pouring aid into Africa, one of the (natural resources) richest continents, with no remarkable results. We've more than paid for any historical sins committed by some Causcasians with whom the majority of us share no kinship. Its time to forgive ourselves and to start defending ourselves.

Not to push the issue, but it seems that even the concept of forgiving ourselves operates within the anti-racist framework. Firstly, only a miniscule minority of people benefitted from slavery in certain European states, so it is ludicrous to taint all those of European descent with guilt for that activity, which West African and Arab elites actually encouraged; secondly, European empires tended to mobilize economic resources that other peoples did not know existed or how to exploit them; thirdly, non-European peoples tended to be in the exact same economic position even if there was no colonialism involved i.e. exporting raw materials for European manufactures e.g. Great Britain had a larger share of favorable trade with Africa and Asia before its major colonial conquests; and fourth, a combination of Marxism-Leninism and Western medicine is more responsible for Africa's problems than anything else i.e. blame Doctors Without Borders, the Soviet Union, East Germany and Cuba.

Notice that the British and Americans seem to be villified more than the Portuguese and Spanish who literally f*cked the Amerindians of Central and South America into oblivion, or the French who continue to interfere in Francophone Africa, or the Belgians who under Leopold II engaged in one of the first modern genocides in the Congo Free State - perhaps it's because anti-racism has more to do with race-relations in the United States, than it does .

Taurus689: What the West needs to do is to help the Third World by remote control. Give them aid and advisors to enable them to stabilize their own countries as best they can given their limited capabilites but don't import them into the West. They need to remain where they are as do we.

Why must we help them?

Armor: The main reason why the USA has more crime than Europe is because they have more Blacks. Americans need their guns more than we do. In a white country where the police do their job, and where most people are peaceful and cooperate with the police, it may be better not to have guns.
 
Do not delude yourself into thinking that a White United States would resemble the Scandinavian societies merely because of racial homogeneity. Though ancestry and concomitantly race is an attribute of ethnicity/nationality and thereby is linked to culture, it is but one factor among many.
 

Atheling: I guess you never drove on the I-5 corridor on the west coast. Where do you get your information? From al-BBC?

 
No and no.
 
 
John Lott: The problem for the city is that anyone who can look up the crime numbers will see that D.C.'s murder and violent crime rates went up, not down, after the ban. Prior to the ban DC's murder rate was falling. After the ban, DC's murder rate rose, and only once fell below what it was in 1976. But it is not just DC that has experienced increases in murder and violent crime after guns are banned. While DC points to Chicago's ban to justify its own, Chicago also experienced an increase after its ban in 1982...Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. The rates of serious violent crime, armed robberies, rapes and homicide have also soared. Similar experiences have been seen with other bans, such as those in Ireland and Jamaica.
 
 
Though Lott makes interesting points, correlation does not necessarily demonstrate causality. If actual or would-be criminals remain able to acquire firearms through other means, such bans are largely useless. The same result will occur if there is little in the way of prevention, enforcement and deterrence.
 

THE DOCTOR: Law abiding citizens should and are allowed to possess guns, we use them for target shooting and hunting. In the 40 years that I have had guns I have never felt the need to shoot anyone...

Firstly, I am not certain that I agree with hunting, considering that it is unnecessary for sustenance. Secondly, some people have felt the need to commit murder, whether premeditated or not, or in the midst of some other criminal activity.

What the West needs to do is to help the Third World by remote control. Give them aid and advisors to enable them to stabilize their own countries as best they can given their limited capabilites but don't import them into the West. They need to remain where they are as do we.

You can't take primitives and place them in an advanced society and expect them to assimilate and to experience an Epiphany. It's beyond their capabilty. They react to situations violently  without considering the consequences of their actions. They are incapable of controlling their primitive urges ( witness the epidemic of rapes,even of infants and the wanton butchery in Africa) They are what they are and we can't intellectualize it out of existence.

"Mona que se viste de seda, mona se queda."

 The argument that poverty is an excuse for violent crime rings hollow. Poverty might be a reason for crimes like theft but certainly not for murder and rape and child molestation. 

Appalachia is arguably the poorest region of the US and has been for decades yet has a low crime rate and the reason is that there are few minorities there compared to our large urban areas that are heavily populated by minorities. 

As for the murderous Turk, he should die at the hand of one of Anne Lorraine's family. The law doesn't protect the law abiding. A vendetta killing, swift and surgical is the way to go. Just a fantasy of course because all means will be used to protect him from harm all through the legal process. He'll be clad in a ballistic vest and be surrounded by a wall of special ops police.

 On the other hand, the law did nothing to protect Anne Lorraine; not even the minimum effort such as better patrolling of the notoriously dangerous train line.

 Her death is even more painful to contemplate now that we have a picture.

Kapitein Andre: [firearm possession in the United States has] "contributed to higher crime and higher firearm-related violence"

The main reason why the USA has more crime than Europe is because they have more Blacks. Americans need their guns more than we do. In a white country where the police do their job, and where most people are peaceful and cooperate with the police, it may be better not to have guns. But third-world immigration is changing all that. When the big cities are no longer white and the government will not let the police do their job, guns are the best way to protect society. If, in a multiracial society, people are not allowed to take part in their own protection, the police will be quickly overwhelmed, even if they are allowed to take action.

Widespread gun possession is bound to cause a lot of unnecessary violence, but it will prevent even more violence. I may be safer if I do not own a gun myself (no accident at home, and no deadly fit of road rage for me), but even so, I will be safer if weapons are allowed in the country, because housebreakers will know I am likely to have one and use it. Now, we should ask social scientists to calculate at what point in the near future third-world immigration will make it advisable to allow guns in France. Maybe not yet. At this point in time, maybe gun possession would do more harm than good.

Another solution would be to stop immigration and start repatriation. But instead, immigration keeps increasing all the time.

@ Sudif

Soft attitudes in certain western countries via-a-vis crime and criminals are NOT based on "might-is-right thinking".   While it is dangerous to generalise, these soft attitudes are often based on the mistaken notion (held by many leftist elites in government) that the criminals in question are in some way VICTIMS of society.  Hence they find it often difficult to hold individuals - ALL individuals - fully responsable for their actions.  It is an outgrowth of marxist thinking about a struggle between 'classes' in society and about 'inequality' among individuals.  When they see a 'criminal', they often ALSO think (or imagine) that they are seeing a victim of an unequal society.  In so doing, they often tend to overlook the REAL victim(s) of that particular criminal's actions.  

While these 'soft-on-crime' attitudes are typical for many on the political Left, there are also many (racists) on the Right who tend to judge people not as individuals but as members of a particular 'group'.  

"If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he will use his weapon more effectively than you anyway, so you are risking your life"

What if you are prepared to risk your life? Why is it regarded as somehow ill-mannered  to fight back against someone who has the upper hand? Whatever the reason, this might-is-right thinking seems to be quite common - and possibly one cause of high crime rates.

Even European politicians from the so-like Mr. Sarkozy

"Firearm possession merely makes citizens afraid to honk their horns or upset anyone as it allows for a rapid, thoughtless and excessive response."

I guess you never drove on the I-5 corridor on the west coast. Where do you get your information? From al-BBC?

Gun bans lead to increase in violent crime

Andrew Wood at -->5:28 PM ET

John Lott [Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland and author of Freedomnomics]: "The District of Columbia's request for cert made a simple argument: Whatever one thinks of the Second Amendment, banning handguns is a "reasonable regulation" to protect public safety. Indeed, most of the city's brief focused on public safety arguments. The problem for the city is that anyone who can look up the crime numbers will see that D.C.'s murder and violent crime rates went up, not down, after the ban.

Prior to the ban DC's murder rate was falling. After the ban, DC's murder rate rose, and only once fell below what it was in 1976.

But it is not just DC that has experienced increases in murder and violent crime after guns are banned. While DC points to Chicago's ban to justify its own, Chicago also experienced an increase after its ban in 1982.

Taking a page from recent Supreme Court cases, D.C. points to gun bans in other countries as evidence that others think that gun bans are desirable. But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning guns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give D.C. and its supporters some pause. Not only didn't violent crime and homicide decline as promised, but they actually increased.

D.C.'s brief specifically points to Great Britain's handgun ban in January 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. The rates of serious violent crime, armed robberies, rapes and homicide have also soared. Similar experiences have been seen with other bans, such as those in Ireland and Jamaica.

continue here:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/11/gun-bans-lead-to-increase-in-violent.php

Law abiding citizens should and are allowed to possess guns , we use them for target shooting and hunting .In the 40 years that I have had guns I have never felt the need to shoot anyone , no I do not get offended if someone honks their horn or cuts in on me . However if someone enters my home with the intent of hurting me I will respond with up to lethal force , but probably not with a gun .

Paul Belien: There is no Second Amendment in Europe. Even European politicians from the so-called "right," like Mr. Sarkozy, are horrified at the suggestion that citizens should be allowed to protect themselves against criminals. Last year, Mr. Sarkozy told French radio: "Security is the responsibility of the state. I am against the private ownership of firearms. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he will use his weapon more effectively than you anyway, so you are risking your life." The result is that in France only the criminals are armed, while decent citizens, even those as brave as Anne-Lorraine, perish.

Though I greatly appreciate this article, I cannot consciously lend support to the notion of allowing French citizens to arm themselves. While firearm possession in the United States will certainly deter the emergence of an authoritarian or totalitarian government (or will it?) and certainly any would-be invader who could handle its armed services, reserve and national guard, it has only contributed to higher crime and higher firearm-related violence. Arguing this point is not unlike arguing that high school and college students and staff should be mandated to carry firearms in order to ward off mass public rampages such as that at Columbine.

Firearm possession merely makes citizens afraid to honk their horns or upset anyone as it allows for a rapid, thoughtless and excessive response.

Anne-Lorraine Schmitt would be better served by ensuring that 'dangerous' sections of the Parisian transportation system are patrolled by police or security officers and equipped with CCTV, etc. Moreover, firearm possession will not resolve the fact that the French judiciary is becoming lenient both on criminals who carry weapons (who should receive a minimum of 10 years for mere possession) or on recidivists.