10-12-2001 21:53									#121
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Roland For soft drugs [European nations], someone in crimonolgy came up to describe the approach as the 4-4 rule: 4 % of cases get reported, and out of that 4 % end in a conviction. Might well be a 2-2 rule now. The repression of hard drugs is a lot more serious, but there are no special powers related to that.

Sounds fairly liberal by US standards. I believe there were over 700,000 Amercan citizens incarcerated for drug related crimes in the US during the last year of Clinton's administration. And Clinton was a fairly liberal President!?

quote: Police forces exist at a federal and "state" level in Germany, Switzerland and Spain. Criminal law is usually codified at the national level. At the EU level there is only Europol which is not an "operational" police force but only does analysis and information sharing.

I am equating the level of bureaucracy/government represented by the EU to that of the US Federal government. So under that model individual Europeans nations would equate to US States [regardless of actual nomenclature]. For example, Germany's Federal and state law enforcement agencies would be be akin to State and county law enforcement agencies in the US.

If the EU does not have independently staffed law enforcement agencies now, they likely will sometime soon. Large bureacracies are power sponges!

An EU law enforcement agency that could compare to a US Federal law enforcement agency would have to be an independently staffed multi-national agency with powers to investigate crime and make arrests in any EU nation. This would then equate to something like the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [BATF], the US Marshalls and/or the FBI. The US Feds have other agencies with the power of arrest as well. My question was, did Europe have any such independent law enforcement agencies prior to the establishment of the EU - and do they have any now. It soundsl ike you are saying they do not have any equivalent even now.

I think it boils down to manpower levels in the final analysis. I would like to see figures on drug law enforcement personnel per thousand citizens in both the US and the combined nations of the EU before I could reasonably assess the dedication of the drug control efforts in both places.

- Scipio

	10-12-2001 23:35									#122
	Suffering from ads?

--"Wraith: Where do you get your quotes from?"

All over the place. I've got a rather lengthy text file I just copy interesting comments and taglines into. It's been growing for a while. There's a few thousand lines in it right now, but some get used a lot more than others.

--"the same legal system allowed for slavery well into the 19th century,"

Well, most of the problem there seems to have stemmed from rather selective definitions of "human". Not an ideal basis, but better than nothing.

--"and that old right only applied to free men, correct ?"

All franchised citizens, basically.

--"So if I acquire them with my own money, I have a right to own nuclear weapons ?"

Sure. Big waste of money, but if it floats your boat.

--"Then why did it need to be "regulated" ?"

It's that language drift thing again. It was a comment on efficency, not governmental control. Those connotations came in at a later date.

Wraith
The problem with trouble shooting is that trouble shoots back

	11-12-2001 00:22									#123
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I live in the Cass Corridor neighborhood in Detroit, one of the roughest neighborhoods in the city. I have been mugged twice, broken into three times, shot at, and almost stabbed. Every new year's eve, I literally hide under my bed to avoid being hit by a stray, celebratory gunfire.

Why do I live here? Because in spite of it, I love everything this city offers. However, after only so much of it, I bought a 12-gauge shotgun just in case.
In the past six months, by either showing it, cocking it, and firing it (once), I have prevented my car from being stolen, my neighbor's garage from being burnt down, and kept crack dealers off the back porch of my flat.

I'm just a beer-chugging, blue-collar white boy, so can one of you eggheads please explain why I 'm supposed to feel MORE safe with stricter gun controls?
I can't rely on our police-they're one of the most corrupt and bureaucratic forces in the country. Neighborwood watch? Yeah ..right.

If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns, right?? Well, it's more like 'Whether guns are outlawed or not, criminals will ALWAYS have guns" Duh, they're CRIMINALS, they find stuff like that no matter what.

Try living in my neighborhood for a week and see how your opinion about personal gun ownership evolves..

	11-12-2001 00:48									#124
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Why in the hell would anyone want to live in such a dump dave? Thats your choice to live in a war zone, not anyone elses! I wouldn't try living there if you paid me

Do you think it's healthy to live in a place where a gun is a necessity?

All I've said, and will continue to say is that it should be harder for people to get their hands on weapons. I didn't suggest disarming people.

You know there are nice places in the world where violence isn't so predominant right dave? The risks must outweight the benefits. By choosing to stay there, it is you that puts yourself at risk. Not gun legislation

	11-12-2001 15:02									#125
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Scipio:

"And Clinton was a fairly liberal President!?"

I'd rather think he was a policestatist.

"If the EU does not have independently staffed law enforcement agencies now, they likely will sometime soon. Large bureacracies are power sponges!"

True, but at the moment, there are maybe 25.000-30.000 people working for "the EU". I think the US has 1.5-2 million federal employees, not counting the military ?

"The US Feds have other agencies with the power of arrest as well. My question was, did Europe have any such independent law enforcement agencies prior to the establishment of the EU - and do they have any now. It soundsl ike you are saying they do not have any equivalent even now."

If "power of arrest" is your benchmark, then no, nothing like it at the EU level.

"I would like to see figures on drug law enforcement personnel per thousand citizens in both the US and the combined nations of the EU before I could reasonably assess the dedication of the drug control efforts in both places."

There is no ATF, DEA etc. Most european governments do not work under the fragmented-agency-apporach, there is simply "the police", and a drug department, a murder department etc within.
More informative might be stats on convictions. Austria has a quite repressive approach for european standards, and it goes like this:

(mere) posession, small amount dealing:
total 2200
- fine: 1000
- prison, probation: 700
- prison, (partially) no probation: 300
- other: 200

"professional" posession and dealing:
total ~900
- fine: 30
- prison, probation: 240
- prison, (partially) no probation: 650

Total convictions under penal law: ~40.000
Prison population based on convictions: ~5000

On a population of 8 million. Multiply by 35 for US dimensions.

Wraith:

"Sure. Big waste of money, but if it floats your boat."

Somehow I do not think this is a good idea....

"It's that language drift thing again. It was a comment on efficency, not governmental control. Those connotations came in at a later date."

Art I section 8 as far as it refers to the miltia describes rather well what I'd understand as regulating.

	11-12-2001 15:11									#126
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by aaglo One wise man once said (I don't remember who - propably an american): "USA is the only country that has gone straight from barbarism to decay - without the usual period of civilization"

This was said by Georges Clemeceau
(this addition is to evade the possible lawsuits incoming )

	11-12-2001 15:29									#127
	Remove this text

we all know I lack the intelligence (IQ of less than 80) to have a real debate.

But you can't say to me guns aren't cool- in the U.S. There is almost always at least 1 gun in every single movie ever made in the U.S. almost like cigarrettes. Cigarrettes are cool too . This all depends on your definition of cool though.

So don't tell sh!t like I don't know what it feels like to have a gun pointed at your face. I have been robbed at gunpoint. Does this mean I no longer like guns? well...no. I just don't like them pointed at me . So yes I think guns are cool.

They serve a purpose other than killing humans. They kill animals. Our culture is still based on our frontier knowledge. Surviving in the 18th and 19th century on frontier lands away from civilization required knowledge and use of guns. Today this is unecessary- but it hasn't been that long. Man depended on guns for survival. This also explains why fishing is still popular in the U.S. (I can't think of any other reason )

But just because they are cool doesn't mean they should be legal. M-60's are cool, but they aren't legal. I say only traditional weapons should be legal. Any weapon invented after 1900 should be illegal. . A man should be able to live like his forfathers did on the frontier. And since the gatling gun was invented in the 19th century, I want one on my front lawn . but I fail to see why a person needs an assault rifle, an autmatic assault shotgun, a powerful automatic pistol, or a submachine gun

	11-12-2001 16:51									#128
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Big Macs, french fries, TV, and the Internet kill more people each year than guns, yet should we pass a law that bans eating bad food or being inactive?

hell no!

plus i truly believe that crime has other factors that just the availability of guns, things like alcohol, poverty, screwed up families...most of the time the person shooting you is somebody that you know most of the time its a relative, and simply banning guns won't end the violence...plus i think i'd rather have a .45 blow my brains out rather than have somebody take a hammer and smash them out

guns are the canary in the mineshaft, once gun rights die, all other rights won't be far behind

	11-12-2001 16:54									#129
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

yeah but banning guns is easier than solving social problems

I expect in 30 to 50 years we will be living in a world similar to the movie: Demolition man. In fact even in the 5 years since the movie came out I see things trending that way in certain aspects of society. Luckily it hasn't affected society as a whole...

	11-12-2001 17:03									#130
	Support Apolyton

In europe there are no problems about guns being banned. But the abundance of guns is much greater in US than ever was in europe. So maybe US is only slow. If the constitution had been changed some 20 or 30 years ago, the problem wouldn't be so great - I think.

	12-12-2001 02:28									#131
	Put an end to popups!

--"Austria has a quite repressive approach for european standards, and it goes like this:"

I don't have a detailed breakdown on hand, but if this is repressive by European standards we got our difference.
For quick comparison, 646,042 people were arrested for simple marijuana possession in 1999. Scaled to match your numbers by population, that's 18,458 minor possession charges (not even dealing). Not sure what the conviction rate is, but it's got to be higher than 1 out of 9.

--"Art I section 8 as far as it refers to the miltia describes rather well what I'd understand as regulating."

It says they have the power to call it up but still leaves the training to the states, which is primarly where the statement was concerned (efficency here in the "trained in military discipline and use of arms" sense).

Note:

quote: The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

Alexander Hamilton --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

--"If the constitution had been changed some 20 or 30 years ago,"

It wouldn't have even been able to have been a question 20 or 30 years ago. It wasn't long before that when full machine guns were still legal with out any significant hassles.

Wraith
"If pro is the opposite of con, then what is the opposite of progress?"
-Anonymous (CONGRESS!)

	12-12-2001 03:07									#132
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

machine guns were never legal. they were obtained illegally

	12-12-2001 03:11									#133
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Dissident machine guns were never legal. they were obtained illegally

Maybe or maybe not, but sub-MGs were definitely legal. Thompsons were sold via magazine order.

	12-12-2001 03:12									#134
	Get a bigger avatar today!

too bad I couldn't get my hands on one of those in the 30's

	12-12-2001 13:45									#135
	Tired of ads?

Wraith:

"For quick comparison, 646,042 people were arrested for simple marijuana possession in 1999. Scaled to match your numbers by population, that's 18,458 minor possession charges (not even dealing)."

Hmm.... actually that number is not that shocking. Drug related "arrests" (from 15 minutes upwards) may well be 10.000 or even 15.000 - considering 3000 convictions... I don't have a nr on arrests, but if you include simple short term detention for indentification purposes....

"Not sure what the conviction rate is, but it's got to be higher than 1 out of 9."

That along with the nr of people actually in prison convicted on drug charges might give a better picture...

"It says they have the power to call it up but still leaves the training to the states, which is primarly where the statement was concerned (efficency here in the "trained in military discipline and use of arms" sense)."

So what stands against connecting arms ownership with training (in handling the gun, not in military discipline) ?

	12-12-2001 23:36									#136
	Tired of ads?

--"but if you include simple short term detention for indentification purposes..."

Not sure they do. That number's from the FBI UCR, but I'm not sure what the methedology of the reporting is.

--"That along with the nr of people actually in prison convicted on drug charges might give a better picture..."

Best I could find was some 1996 data that showed 23.7% of the prison population in jail on drug offenses as their most serious charge (these are convictions only). 12.6% (again of the convicted population) had drug possession as their most serious offense. Considering there are over 2 million people in jail in the US, those are some pretty hefty numbers.

There's also those idiotic three-strikes laws. Three minor possession convictions can get you put in jail for up to 99 years (no joke), with a pretty hefty minimum sentence that the judge is required to impose. Part of our problem is that we've got so many non-violent drug offenders in jail on mandatory sentences that we have to let the violent offenders out early. Another part is the plea-bargain system, which means if you name enough names you can get off easy. This just seems to result in the low and mid-level dealers getting off easy by turning in clients.

--"So what stands against connecting arms ownership with training (in handling the gun, not in military discipline)?"

I wouldn't be opposed to it, as long as it wasn't being used as an excuse to deny people purchases. In principle, there'd be nothing wrong, but it'd be too easy to make the classes cost too much, not run often enough, etc, and effectively bar anyone from getting a new weapon.

Wraith
I don't want children exposed to censorship - is there a chip for that?

	12-12-2001 23:43									#137
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Wraith, WRT conditions upon gun ownership, that is certainly not Constitutional.

Article 1, Section 8 grants no power to the federal government to put a condition upon gun ownership, nor does the 2nd Amendment itself.

If a State wanted to do that, I'd still be opposed, but not from a legal standpoint.

	12-12-2001 23:47									#138
	Tired of ads?

quote: There's also those idiotic three-strikes laws. Three minor possession convictions can get you put in jail for up to 99 years (no joke), with a pretty hefty minimum sentence that the judge is required to impose.

I don't think it's necessarily the best system...but is the law idiotic, or the people that get busted three times? If I was convicted twice and knew a third could land me in prison for a long time, I would think that would be enough to deter me. Which is the point after all.

I don't think putting someone in jail for life for dealing a little dope or smoking it is fair....but jeez, these people know what they're doing. They know the risks and possible consequences. So why do they continue to try the system???

	13-12-2001 03:26									#139
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: If I was convicted twice and knew a third could land me in prison for a long time, I would think that would be enough to deter me.

It's called addiction. Hard to break.

	13-12-2001 04:01									#140
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: It's called addiction. Hard to break

Then they belong in jail

	13-12-2001 04:08									#141
	Increase Your PM Length

They belong in jail for smoking weed??

	13-12-2001 04:20									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

How sad, that someone wants to jail people for substance addictions. Next thing you know, we'll be tossin' 'em away for their religious beliefs...

	13-12-2001 04:22									#143
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Newsflash: Man Addicted to Caffeine Gets Jailtime

	13-12-2001 14:39									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

"Not sure they do. That number's from the FBI UCR, but I'm not sure what the methedology of the reporting is."

I think the european drug information something has stats on drug arrests, but the legal definitions vary so widely it's quite pointless.

"Best I could find was some 1996 data that showed 23.7% of the prison population in jail on drug offenses as their most serious charge (these are convictions only). 12.6% (again of the convicted population) had drug possession as their most serious offense. Considering there are over 2 million people in jail in the US, those are some pretty hefty numbers."

So roughly 500.000 ?
I don't know our share, but the total prison population convicted of whatever is 5000 - population adjusted, less than 200.000.

Assuming it is the same share in nr of convicts as in convictions, would give ~7 % - so 15.000 vs 500.000 even after adjusting for population.

"There's also those idiotic three-strikes laws."

I still fail to understand how they can be upheld as constitutional.

"Another part is the plea-bargain system..."

Trial by plea-bargain instead of trial by jury. Not really a step forward...