Airport security part 3: Planes, trains, and automobiles

Airport security part 3: Planes, trains, and automobiles

Summary: I took a trip home to Michigan this week via Amtrak, and I got to thinking about previous articles I've written about airline security and wondered why are the security concerns so much more lax for trains and cars than they are for planes?

SHARE:
TOPICS: Security
24

I took a trip home to Michigan this week via Amtrak, and I got to thinking about previous articles I've written about airline security and wondered why are the security concerns so much more lax for trains and cars than they are for planes? 

There's certainly some obvious reasons, like you can't just pull a train off of its tracks and point it to some other destination, like the pentagon or white house say, but certainly these trains carry lots of people to many big cities with large train stations.  To be frank, I was blown away when I DIDN'T have to take off my shoes, belt, watch, throw out my bottle of water, give up my five ounce stick of deodorant, and pull out each of my three laptops for separate entry to an X-ray machine.  In fact, nothing went through an X-ray machine.

Actually, I got to thinking about recent car trips I've taken.  I drove all the way from Houston into the heart of downtown Chicago with a full UHaul stuffed with computers, TVs, any number of things including at least 8 liters of water.  Certainly if a single bottle of water could build a bomb to create risk to a plane, then 8 liters could create risk on the scale of a nuclear payload.

Why the descrepency in terms of security?  Well, the obvious reason is that trains and autombiles are not quite as flexible for terrorist usage; however, they've been used before, and they could be used again.  How about a better reason... it's ridiculous.  The security you see at the airport is just an illusion meant to make us FEEL safer more than it is about real security.

-Nate

Topic: Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

24 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • All too true ...

    I remember 2 discussions I had with friends after 9/11. The first was when I was travelling with my football team(soccer team to you Yanks) and we noticed a couple of armed security guards meandering around the concourse. One of my mates mentioned that we as a group could easily gang-tackle the guards, take their weapons, board a plane, and fly away to whatever mischief we chose to. What's to stop a large group of suicide nuts to do the same?

    The other conversation was with a former prison guard who delighted in telling us how many different weapons could be improvised using anything from mundane travel items to esoteric high-tech materials. His ending comment was that "If Al-queda hired a couple of San Quentin ex-cons, they could have a pile of deadly weapons sitting inside the security perimeter in a couple of days!"
    terry flores
  • RE: Planes, trains, and automobiles

    It's all about fear and control. Since planes can cover a greater distance AND are easier to control (points of entry are limited to a plane and fewer connection points) they also offer a higher profile of success. The natural fear of flying many have are exacerbated by the thought of a "terrorist" commandeering a plane and using it as a weapon against the "great satan"!

    It's all about fear, if you instill false fear in people you can control them and strip away their freedoms. I have said it time and time again... we are no safer today than we were 7 years ago. All that has happened is corporations have gotten richer off of our ill placed fear and the government has gotten bigger and more intrusive in our lives. The gates to Orwell's 1984 have been opened even more, for our safety of course!

    Also the "homeland security" and other tactics and "laws" enacted have been created and instituted to continue the attack against the American people by keeping the fear there with "imminent danger!"

    If a Senator could march a mariachi band with an elephant across the Mexican American border... how many terrorists do you think could have gotten in with nukes, biologic or chemical weapons? Every time I fly I protest as to the un-American anti constitutional searches in airports. I protect by telling them that yes I do mind being searched without writ, warrant or probable cause in my nation of birth. In another country I don't have that Constitutional protection and say not a word but in this nation, I fought and defended (whether you agree with that or not) I do have that right. All American citizens do.

    How we are treated is illegal and as un-American as fajita's. It's time we stood up and let the government know we are tired of being treated like criminals in our own nation. ]:)
    Linux User 147560
    • Great points

      Certainly the loss of freedom in this country is terrifying.

      -Nate
      nmcfeters
  • RE: Planes, trains, and automobiles

    This is not to agree or disagree with the comments on
    freedom from searches - that is another discussion, and as
    a Canadian I will leave it my American cousins to settle that
    discussion amongst themselves.

    However, I do not agree with your comments about the
    degree of security required for "planes, trains, and
    automobiles"....

    The size of an explosive that is needed to fatally damage
    an airplane (killing all on-board) is pretty small. A plane is
    made up of aluminum and other light alloys whose
    thickness is measured in fractions of an inch. A train has
    steel measured inches, as a foundation. And, a train can
    be heavily damaged - and yet keep the majority of the
    passengers safe. The Madrid train bombing showed how
    much more difficult it is to kill a large number of people
    on a train. The complexity of the operation ensures that
    most plots are caught in the planning stages. A building
    is constructed of concrete and steel, measured in feet of
    thickness. Recall that a large U-Haul sized bomb was
    exploded in the basement of the World Trade Centre
    several years before Sept 11. The building was not
    structurally compromised.

    Also, remember that security on airplanes have been in
    place for decades. They have been targets for, what... half
    a century? Do you recall all those "take me to cuba" plots?
    Or Entebbe? Or Lockerbie, or the Air India flight blown up
    mid-atlantic? (that act was the worst terrorism in North
    America until 9/11). The destruction of the Air India flight
    was only half of the plan. There was supposed to be 2nd
    plane blown up mid-pacific at the same time. This was
    not another Al-queda plot, incidentally. Nor was
    Lockerbie. Nor were most of the others until this decade.

    Do you not remember the score of planes, over the 60s,
    70s and 80s burning on the tarmacs in Europe, Africa and
    the Mid-east?

    What has changed is that the people who are targeting
    airplanes are now no longer afraid to die. The hijackers of
    the past wanted to negotiate, and therefore there were
    expectations that most of the passengers would live.

    So, yes, perhaps there is fear mongering, and a placebo
    effect with all the scanners. There may need to an
    examination of the balance of personal rights vs group
    security. But don't downplay the dangers of air travel.
    snberk203
    • ...

      Fear is completely misplaced...

      [url=http://www.fearlessflight.com/airplane-disasters-plane-crash-statistics]You have a higher probability[/url] of dying by automobile than by aircraft... even one that is "attacked" by a terrorist.

      [url=http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99845.htm]Another look at[/url] it.

      [url=http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/travel/train-plane-car.html]And yet one[/url] more.

      Another thing, with the proliferation of stinger like missile systems, you know those little one man jobs that are pretty easy to move in a car or truck? [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger]Read up on them[/url]. They can be used on air craft on approach or even on take off. the ability to take a civilian aircraft down is so easy it's crazy!

      The entire system we have currently completely empowers the government to enact unconstitutional search and seizure. One of the beauties of being an American citizen is the ability to move about our nation without having to prove who we are or to be stopped and searched.

      The entire thing is a sham. And as someone else pointed out, there are a million and one weapons available at any given time to someone that is truly motivated or driven. Even the effective use of martial arts to sub-due an air marshal can be use.

      You think a criminal mind set is locked into the thinking patterns of what is dictated by security? And lets not forget the large number of materials that are successfully smuggled past the security systems.

      The bottom line is telling someone they can't take a bottle of water through a check point is nothing but sheer ignorance! Or even their personal hygiene kits! Come on! It has been proven by scientists and specialist that the entire make a chemical weapon requires a laboratory to perform.

      Seriously if someone really wants to get something onto a plane, they can. They can even use what is on the plane to do the deed. What is the easiest way to take a plane our of the sky? Keep in mind many of these "terrorists" have no problem or fear of dying... simply open a door at 20,000 feet. Plane goes down, people die.

      ]:)
      Linux User 147560
      • Plane trains automobiles, oh my

        Absolutely agree that the chances of a mishap in an
        automobile is greater than an airplane. Thats why I still fly
        and drive. I also take prudent safety measures in a car,
        like use seatbelts. I don't try to make a car perfectly safe,
        just as a safe as possible with a reasonable amount of
        effort. Same thing for planes. Nothing will make them
        perfectly safe. Where we may disagree is what constitutes
        "reasonable".

        I objected to the analogies in the original story about how
        dangerous items that are banned from planes might be on
        the ground.

        First of all.... "Ordinary" items are not being screened from
        planes - it is "extraordinary" items that look like ordinary
        items. Unfortunately there is not easy way to tell one from
        other, so a blanket ban is imposed.

        The technology exists to tell one from the other, but it is
        slow and/or mindboggling expensive. In North America
        one can usually ask to have photographic film swabbed
        instead of x-rayed. It takes a special machine, technician
        and time. Imagine the cost in time and money if those
        machines were implemented to check everything.
        Incidentally, in the UK you do not have this option - your
        film is x-rayed. period. (or full-stop if we are in the UK).

        The point of the extra security on planes is to make the
        criminals believe that the chances of being caught are too
        high. Yes, in some cases they are willing to die - but
        ironically, they don't want to be caught, especially before
        the action.

        The more difficult it is to plan a successful mission, the
        more people need to be included, and the more chances
        they have of making a mistake.

        Do you think North America managed to avoid (for the
        most part) the terrorist activities of the 60s, 70s and 80s
        (Black September, PLO, Red Guard, etc etc) that wracked
        Europe and the Middle East because we were lucky? Its
        because, I believe, the security services here have
        successfully infiltrated so many groups that are
        sympathetic to violent causes. The plots are caught in the
        planning stages. There are currently trials in London and
        Toronto (or perhaps Ottawa) of alleged terrorists caught
        during the planning phase. Planning phases that much
        more complex now because of the barriers now in place
        that prevent anyone from just strolling onto a plane with
        anything they like.

        I live and work in North America. I've done probably
        slightly more than an average amount of travel to the mid-
        east and to Europe. Once I've been in a bank, and once on
        a train car with an object that was identified as a possible
        bomb (both times a false alarm, luckily). I don't want to
        see more security checks in place. I don't feel overly
        oppressed either by the current state of affairs.

        I do believe that there are improvements that can be made
        to make the system better, safer, and less intrusive. I also
        agree the passenger security screening is a joke until the
        ground-side screening catches. There was a news story
        recently about an INS raid on one of the American air
        carriers ground staff. IIRC something like 5% of their staff
        were working with falsified papers. Meaning that all those
        security background checks were for other people. Until
        the US stops relying on undocumented immigrants to
        support the economy. About 5% of the US labour force is
        undocumented.
        snberk203
        • Bad form, sorry

          I think its bad form to respond to my own message, but I
          had another thought....

          Imagine (hypothetically) that an airport security system was
          on strike. And the strike was public knowledge. No
          screeners, no xray machines, etc. Anyone could bring
          anything onboard. And imagine in our imaginary world the
          airport was allowed to continue to operate. Would you get
          on to a plane there? Its all hypothetical - this is just to see
          where the discussion goes.

          I wouldn't get on board a plane there.
          snberk203
          • ...

            Yes I would. To live a life in constant fear is not to live at all. Live life, enjoy life don't live in fear. That is the greatest slavery any man any where could ever be subjected too.

            I have survived combat, so maybe my perspective on fear is different, but I would still get on that hypothetical plane and go my hypothetical destination. And so would my wife and other family members. Why? Because we all realize that to live life means to take chances and that no matter how hard you try, you don't get out alive. So enjoy it, live it. ]:)

            [B]Just and FYI[/B]
            Oh and I wanted to ad you can edit your own posts. Simply go to the post in question then you will notice an edit button in the upper right corner of your post. Click on that and you can edit you post... like I did this one. For future reference.
            Linux User 147560
          • Thanks

            I feel that I also have the right to be free from a madman
            or madwoman doing mad things in a narrow aluminum
            tube that is 35,000 ft up in the air. You already accept a
            certain amount of restriction to your movement, unless
            you are in the habit of driving on the wrong side of the
            road. Its a trivial comparison, I will concede that.... but it
            does make a point. The question is, what level of intrusion
            is "reasonable"? We both accept that laws that tell us
            where to drive on a public road are acceptable. We don't
            agree about airport screening.

            The beauty of a democracy is that we can disagree
            between ourselves, and with the government.

            Thanks for the editing tip. I've already used it.
            snberk203
        • ...

          "[B]Do you think North America managed to avoid (for the
          most part) the terrorist activities of the 60s, 70s and 80s
          (Black September, PLO, Red Guard, etc etc) that wracked
          Europe and the Middle East because we were lucky?[/B]"

          Nope... back then we had more gun rights and less restrictive laws on fire arms ownership. An armed society is a polite society is a society hard to successfully attack.

          "[B]I don't want to
          see more security checks in place. I don't feel overly
          oppressed either by the current state of affairs.[/B]"

          If I understand correctly you are from the UK, one of the most heavily surveillant societies around, so for you it isn't oppressive. But to an American that has grown up free in his person to move about his nation without being searched, it is oppressive.

          It also goes against the very principle of the Constitution. The 4th amendment spells it out, "[I] The right of the people to be secure in their [U]persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[/U], and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/I]"

          This is a direct violation of my constitutional right. Now once I am in another nation, I am subject to their laws as a visitor. AND if I am to be searched then I have no say since the Constitution doesn't grant me any rights outside the borders of the US. I understand and accept that. BUT in my own nation?

          I am a disabled service member, having dedicated 14 years of my life to service to this nation to uphold the very Constitution that I am watching get tore to shreds all because of FEAR. I would rather die a free man than live a coward. ]:)

          It's time Americans started acting like Americans and stand up for their rights and demand a cessation of the illegal searches of AMERICAN CITIZEN on AMERICAN SOIL! ]:)
          Linux User 147560
          • I don't agree

            [b]"Do you think North America managed to avoid (for the
            most part) the terrorist activities of the 60s, 70s and 80s
            (Black September, PLO, Red Guard, etc etc) that wracked
            Europe and the Middle East because we were lucky?"[/b]

            [i]Nope... back then we had more gun rights and less
            restrictive laws on fire arms ownership. An armed society
            is a polite society is a society hard to successfully
            attack.[/i]

            By that logic the US should now still be, and especially
            back then, have been the safest nation. It is, in fact, one
            of the most dangerous nations to live in, with a very high
            crime rate. This includes all developed, and quite of the
            few of the developing, nations of the world. I don't see
            how a citizen with a gun can prevent someone from
            planting a bomb - the usual tactic. In a hostage situation
            the citizen is likely not trained to deal with that situation.
            In those cases the chances of innocent bystanders getting
            shot are very high.

            [b]"I don't want tosee more security checks in place. I don't
            feel overly oppressed either by the current state of
            affairs."[/b]

            [i]If I understand correctly you are from the UK, one of the
            most heavily surveillant societies around, so for you it isn't
            oppressive. But to an American that has grown up free in
            his person to move about his nation without being
            searched, it is oppressive.[/i]

            Actually, I was born in Los Angeles, and moved to Canada
            as child. I still have family in NYC.

            Ironically, while Canadians should have fewer rights than
            our American cousins, we actually enjoy more freedoms. If
            I recall my Poli Sci classes - the US constitutions starts with
            the premise that all power resides with the citizens [b]
            except[/b] for those powers they give to the government.
            The Canadian works the other way. The state starts with
            all power, [b]except[/b] for those the citizens (working
            through the elected government) grant themselves. Its
            'arse' backwards, but it works for us.

            [b]It also goes against the very principle of the
            Constitution. The 4th amendment spells it out, [i]" The
            right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
            papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
            seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
            but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
            affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
            searched, and the persons or things to be seized."[/i][/b]

            The key word above is "unreasonable". Everything hinges
            on that word. Do you think it is "reasonable" for anyone to
            be able to waltz into the Pentagon, the White House, a
            nuclear plant, a Prison, etc without some sort of screening?

            In free society there are always some restrictions to
            freedom. You can say anything you want, mostly. You can
            go anywhere you want, mostly. No one is making you get
            on an airplane. If you don't like the restrictions, then
            drive, or walk, or take the train. The question is - are the
            searches being conducted at the airports more than what
            is considered necessary. I don't think so, but I respect that
            you don't agree.

            I agree with you that the US constitution is certainly taking
            a battering (and incidentally, I think the Canadian one is
            too.) I'm not as concerned about airport searches as I am
            about electronic surveillance, secret no-fly lists, courts
            that don't have to show the defendant the evidence against
            them.

            Long - term, I'm optimistic. There is a saying that the
            Americans will always do the right thing..... after they have
            tried everything else first.
            snberk203
          • ...

            ?[B]By that logic the US should now still be, and especially back then, have been the safest nation. It is, in fact, one of the most dangerous nations to live in, with a very high crime rate. This includes all developed, and quite of the few of the developing, nations of the world. I don't see how a citizen with a gun can prevent someone from planting a bomb - the usual tactic. In a hostage situation the citizen is likely not trained to deal with that situation. In those cases the chances of innocent bystanders getting shot are very high.[/B]?

            If you look at the statistics, cities that have CCW laws in place and fewer arcane gun laws also have a lower violent crime rate. Cities that have strict gun bans and difficult CCW rules have a higher violent crime rate. It also has to do with education. The more educated a society (think area) the lower the violent crime rate. But the rate of non-violent crimes is proportionally higher.

            People that have CCW (carry concealed weapons permits), have to pass a stringent weapons handling course that includes training one when to use deadly force as well as a proficiency test (at least in California they do, and you have to have a good reason for it). I have a CCW, and it's not easy getting one, at least in California it isn't. While I do not agree with the CCW process since I believe it's un-Constitutional as well, I abide by it so as to avoid prosecution. But the fact is criminals do not worry about abiding by any law...

            In the United States citizens can enact the right to a citizens arrest if they observe someone breaking the law. More crimes are prevented by private citizens and the potential threat of bodily harm due to the possibility of that private citizen having a CCW and willing to perform a citizens arrest. Also there have been several cases where private citizens have actually saved police officers lives by protecting them with their own firearms when the officer had been wounded by a criminal. Contrary to popular belief, most officers would prefer to have an armed citizenry with licenses than not. The LA shooting would have turned out differently had there been armed citizens to assist with the initial fight.

            An armed society is a polite society. Check out Norway, Denmark, Sweden and even the Swiss. All are armed societies, all have low crime rates. Look at the cities with in the United States that are legally armed then compare them to cities that are not.

            [url=http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm]Stats from FBI[/url]

            [url=http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1564/]Some good research here[/url]

            [url=http://www.kc3.com/CCDW_Stats/why_vermont_ccdw.htm]More data supporting CCW.[/url] And this has some interesting facts you won't hear about in the media either.

            [url=http://www.forcesciencenews.com/home/detail.html?serial=62]This is why it is essential[/url] to have armed citizens, again the areas that have the highest crime rates are the ones with gangs and unarmed citizens. If the probability of being shot down in the commission of a crime were higher, the likelihood would drop. The facts don't lie.

            [url=http://www.gunpundit.com/539.php]Chart to show it all...[/url]

            The bottom line... an armed society is a polite society is a safe society.

            ?[B]Actually, I was born in Los Angeles, and moved to Canada as child. I still have family in NYC. [/B]?

            Thanks for the clarification...

            ?[B]Ironically, while Canadians should have fewer rights than our American cousins, we actually enjoy more freedoms. If I recall my Poli Sci classes - the US constitutions starts with the premise that all power resides with the citizens
            except for those powers they give to the government. The Canadian works the other way. The state starts with all power, except for those the citizens (working
            through the elected government) grant themselves. Its 'arse' backwards, but it works for us.[/B]?

            LOL, this could be an entire debate in of itself! I will step out of this aspect for the time being...

            ?[B]The key word above is "unreasonable". Everything hinges on that word. Do you think it is "reasonable" for anyone to be able to waltz into the Pentagon, the White House, a nuclear plant, a Prison, etc without some sort of screening?[/B]?

            I would say that taking and frisking little old women and conducting random screenings of people (I have been pulled off many times for ?extra processing?) is unreasonable. In my opinion, I should be able to board a plane, just like I can a bus or a train. So long as I have a valid paid for ticket I should not have to be searched, especially if I am a citizen of the United States. But I suppose this is all a matter of point of view and reference.

            ?[B]In free society there are always some restrictions to freedom. You can say anything you want, mostly. You can go anywhere you want, mostly. No one is making you get on an airplane. If you don't like the restrictions, then drive, or walk, or take the train. The question is - are the searches being conducted at the airports more than what is considered necessary. I don't think so, but I respect that you don't agree.[/B]?

            Ah yes, but you are also held accountable for what you say. Now it's a well known fact I cannot yell fire in a theater unless there really is one. Why? It's a simple common sense test really. Problem is there are no freeways to Spain and taking a boat... takes longer than I can afford. So I have no choice, now if I had the money and time I could always buy my own plane and fly it. But again that is not a reasonable choice.

            ?[B]I agree with you that the US constitution is certainly taking a battering (and incidentally, I think the Canadian one is too.) I'm not as concerned about airport searches as I am about electronic surveillance, secret no-fly lists, courts that don't have to show the defendant the evidence against them.[/B]?

            Ah that's an ironic statement, secret no fly lists... goes right along with the search and seizure at airports. I agree with you on the electronic surveillance as well. I do not agree with it. Either way, Orwell was right... just off by a couple of decades.

            ?[B]Long - term, I'm optimistic. There is a saying that the Americans will always do the right thing..... after they have tried everything else first.[/B]?

            I am not, when has any government given back the liberties and freedoms they curtailed. When have they given them back freely? I have been looking through history for one and have yet to find it. If you know of one, please let me know. Americans will always do the right thing... that may have been true at one time, but with the paradigm shift in mentality of many Americans that is no longer true, unless a profit can be made. Or there is some personal gain. Keep the faith, someone has to! ]:)


            PS: Your welcome on the edit tip! :)
            Linux User 147560
          • ...

            [b]An armed society is a polite society. Check out Norway,
            Denmark, Sweden and even the Swiss. All
            are armed societies, all have low crime rates. Look at the
            cities with in the United States that are
            legally armed then compare them to cities that are not.
            [/b]
            I'm not sure where you get those statistics on Norway, etc
            (and I mean that literally, so I will do some reading
            before agreeing or disagreeing).... however....

            I think Canada, UK and Australia are better comparisons,
            since we share more common values.
            Canada and the US especially since the cultures as so
            similar. In Canada, property crime rates are,
            IIRC much the same (Actually, Vancouver has more car
            breakins than anywhere else in North
            America). However, violent crime - especially by guns, is a
            fraction of the US rate in Canada, UK and Australia -
            countries that don't permit guns.

            I'll throw some statistics at you too....

            New England Journal of Medicine, June 1986
            "For every case in which an individual used a firearm kept
            in the home in a self-defense homicide,
            there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal
            homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms."

            American Journal of Public Health, June 1997 (Specific to a
            Washington state HMO)
            "Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely
            to die in a suicide or homicide as
            members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who
            had no history of handgun purchase.
            These increased risks persisted for more than five years
            after the purchase."

            King County Public Health website
            "A CDC study found that American children are 12 times
            more likely to die from a firearm injury than
            children in other industrialized countries "

            Canada, with 1/10th the population has less than 200
            homicides by firearms, to nearly 12,000 in the
            USA. The UK, with twice the population (roughly) of
            Canada has less than 100 homicides by firearms.

            Both Canada and the UK have murder rates of .014 and
            .014 (respectively) per 1000 people. The US
            has a murder rate of .043.

            I'm not sure how we got here from the original post..... I'm
            not trying to insult the US ideals of
            freedom, etc. The ideals (if not the actions) are looked up
            to by many people and nations. I just don't
            agree that gun ownership is best way of preserving
            freedom.

            [b]I am not, when has any government given back the
            liberties and freedoms they curtailed. When
            have they given them back freely?[/b]
            There are examples in the US. During WWII many liberties
            were restricted, government gave them
            back. McCarthy era: The US government, FBI were
            infringing on many liberties. Those rights were
            restored by changes made at the ballot box.

            I recently read an interesting explanation of democracy.
            More or less its said... Democracy is very
            little about putting the best person into office. Its mostly
            about getting however is in office out
            again, in a non-violent way.

            Cheers.
            snberk203
          • ....

            [url=http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=8a43c279-0f6f-4068-abbc-7a91992f1e6a&p=1]Counter point[/url] and that is violent crime is on and has been on the rise in England.

            [url=http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/guns/the-australian-gun-ban/]This article shows[/url] a different picture in Australia. The picture is violent crime has not be diminished and that there was actually an explosion of violent crime 12 months after the ban.

            [url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydney-gun-crimes-double/2006/08/30/1156816939675.html]Sydney has seen[/url] an increase in armed robbery... even though it's illegal to own a gun.

            [url=http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21678380-5006009,00.html]This is just last year...[/url]

            [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/09/03/exclusive-gun-crime-uk-89520-19725690/]Staggering! [/url] There were 21,521 reported crimes involving firearms in England and Wales in 2005/6, according to the Home Office.
            That's a 55 per cent increase on a decade earlier, when there were 13,876 gun-related offences.
            It averages 414 gun crimes every week.
            50 of the total firearm crimes were murders.
            7,248 were for other violent incidents against another person.
            Gun-related incidents hit their peak in 2003/04 when there were 24,094 recorded offences.
            Six out of every 100 people in England and Wales are believed to own a gun - more than in Iran or Nigeria.
            The international gun league is headed by America where 90 out of every 100 citizens have a firearm.
            When you put the numbers in perspective based on population and social economic statsus, the US isn't all that bad compared to a nation, Britain, that has and has had very strict gun control. Even the Bobby's for the longest time didn't carry side arms, now it's becoming standard issue... this in a nation that is supposed to be unarmed.

            [url=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167]Interesting article[/url]

            Now a word from our founding fathers!

            [B]Thomas Jefferson:[/B] "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

            "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. "

            "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

            [B]George Washington:[/B] "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."
            [B]James Madison:[/B] "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
            [B]Alexander Hamilton:[/B] "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government."
            [B]Richard Henry Lee:[/B] "To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
            [B]Tench Coxe:[/B] "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
            [B]George Mason:[/B] "Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers."
            [B]Noah Webster:[/B] "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
            [B]John Adams:[/B] "Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."

            [B]Samuel Adams:[/B] "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." ?
            [B]Benjamin Franklin:[/B] "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
            [B]David Houle:[/B] Today, 186 million American gun owners, killed no one.

            Now, I am not a religious man... but even Jesus says man should be armed.
            [B]Jesus[/B] according to Luke:22:36: Then said he unto them, ,,,,,, and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
            Bottom line we can go on and on over this, this is one of those topics that is debated time and time again. The fact remains that gun control only works for those that wish to have total authoritarian control. History is filled with facts of how well gu control works...
            "In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.?
            "In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were rounded up and exterminated.
            "Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others were rounded up and exterminated.
            "China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.
            "Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated.
            "Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated.
            "Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people were rounded up and exterminated."
            Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
            Gun control works great... just not for the people it should.
            Have a good evening... ]:)
            I end this with on this subject we agree to disagree. :) ]:)
            Linux User 147560
          • Guns don't protect people ...

            "By that logic the US should now still be, and especially back then, have been the safest nation. It is, in fact, one of the most dangerous nations to live in, with a very high crime rate."

            This is a turn of phrase from the standard gun enthusiast line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". True enough, but the corollary is "Guns don't protect people, people protect people." There are a lot of gun owners who cannot or do not choose to protect themselves.

            Part of it is culture: Americans have lost both the desire and the right to protect themselves. We abrogated the "dirty job" to professional civil authorities. We allowed the lawyers to pervert the system that was supposed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. When a criminal can sue (and win) a crime victim who only protected his family and property, then the system is broken.

            And finally, part of it is willpower. Americans no longer have the drive and spirit that motivated the Founding Fathers to be free. Spoiled, unmotivated, and imbued with a sense of entitlement, very few contemporary Americans deserve the mantle of citizenship.
            terry flores
          • .....

            Your last paragraph is sadly true... but I am not one of the majority of spineless, fast food scarfing, fat bast@rd, reality tv watching, cowards. So I fight for my rights. ]:)
            Linux User 147560
          • Correct up to a certain point

            Fire arms are a tool. That some citizens choose not to use the tools at hand is their choice. If more persons chose to arm themselves their would be a great deal less crime. Hypothetically if you were a criminal who would you be more likely to attack, a person you were fairly certain was unarmed or a person that you didn't know for sure whether they were packing or not?
            mydnytesun@...
          • Not true

            "Ironically, while Canadians should have fewer rights than
            our American cousins, we actually enjoy more freedoms."
            Tell that to the bloggers who are being persecuted by your British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for supporting the beliefs of their religion. I would say Canada has fewer freedoms than the U.S. and is well on it's way to becoming a repressive country lacking both religious freedom and free speech.
            carlino
          • ...

            That case is still before courts, so can't be used
            as a an example. Anyone has the right to file a
            complaint ... it is likely not be upheld as being
            justified.

            With rendition flights, warrantless wiretaps,
            military courts in Guantanamo. Courts that
            don't allow defendants to see the evidence
            against them, Elections decided by courts, ..... if
            the BCHRC case is the best you can do, I rest
            my case.

            And no, I don't want to start a mud-flinging
            match.... that serves no purpose. And trust me I
            can come up with far worse examples in the
            Canadian system than you could.

            I don't know if you have had any first hand
            experience with Canada, but I do with the US.
            My comment was not to put down the US, but to
            point out the irony of the current situation.

            I have stood in the Lincoln memorial, and been
            moved by the words there. You know what
            needs to be done.
            snberk203
  • Dear Linux User

    You are correct, about the agree to disagree. Thank you for
    a very good debate. I'm going to be a while reading some of
    those links.

    Have a good evening, too.
    snberk203