You might check to see just what year the State of Florida enacted the latest laws. Then, think about the delay in time for the people to obtain their weapons. The, further delays before the "home-boys" didn't make it back home. Like I said before. We don't have the crack-houses like we used to have, AND THE "HOME-BOYS" DON'T COME AROUND ANYMORE. About half a dozen of them were given one of Hog's "instant implant devices" that allowed them to talk to GOD.

I see a drop in the crime rate, parents less afraid that their kids may be molested or abducted, and more people coming out and sitting in front of their homes, rather than sitting behind closed doors. So, while I don't know what the stats show, I KNOW what I'm LIVING. I don't hear about neighbor's homes being broken into, and neighbors being taken to the hospital after getting beaten up by intruders. My front door has been unlocked for the past 6 months, and even the windows on my car have been left open overnight... And, nothing has come up missing. Two years ago, I would not have DARED do that.

But, 2 years ago, even those that had guns at home, didn't dare use them unless they were sure the intruders would fall dead inside their homes. Of the half dozen "home-boys" that didn't make it back to the "hood", only one was dropped in a home. The others were dropped in the street. The residents that did the shooting were home in time for supper with no charges filed. The laws were changed, and it's safer to walk around here now.

What we do have is the girls that dress with as little as possible, and try to sell what they're showing off, but they don't break into any homes. They might try to pick your pocket, but they don't put a knife or gun to you. If you simply don't do business with them, they're out of luck. But, I guess there must be guys that do, do business with them, or they would not be out there.

I find the drop in the number of sex offenders in the area interesting too. I don't know where they went, but they're not in this area.

So, regardless what any site might tell you, Hobo, I'm LIVING it. I'm in the middle of it. Gun laws certainly do have a lot to do with it.

 

Lexington, KY, unfortunately. FROM Texas, though.

:clap::rofl: Love it. Well... except for the part where the guy can be in the middle of the street... at least let him be somewhere on your property. Or.... drag him back ONTO it.

Not sure if you got the spirit of what I said since you quoted me as the one you were replying to, but I AM ANTI-"GUN CONTROL". Gun control SHOULD be defined as: hitting what you aim for. :lol:

 

I saw you ask whether tougher laws and penalties might have something to do with the crime rate drop. The answer is both YES and NO.

YES, for those who were convicted and got stiffer prison terms, simply because they aren't currently free to commit their crime again. NO for those who are first-time offenders. The big mistake that everyone makes is thinking that laws deter crime. They don't, and NEVER will. The reason? People who commit crimes will not even once consider the penalty for being caught while they're planning or committing crimes. They think they're too slick to get caught, so why bother about worrying over penalties??

Laws are to PUNISH crimes, not prevent them. They were never intended to prevent crime and no matter how much the people would like to think otherwise, it's never going to change.

 

That's damnably strange since most molestors live INSIDE THE HOME THAT THE VICTIMS COME FROM. The number of sex crimes that involve persons outside the home of the victim are miniscule (less than 5%). (Ya see... I don't take ANYTHING that a politican tells me as being true. I check ALL of what they say, ANYTIME they open their mouths before I'll believe a single syllable. Doesn't work all the time, though... especially in the area of campaign promises. :cry: Still, it keeps them from being able to use "facts" to lie to me.)

That's due to the hysterical response of Floridians, in the form of NIMBY laws, to certain high-profile crimes involving one of the relatively small percentage of sex offenders that re-offend and do so OUTSIDE of their own family. The truly unfortunate part of this equation is that those crimes usually involve the murder of the victim as well.

Does anyone else find it odd that there is no registry for murderers? Does that tell you "it's ok to kill my kid after you move in next door, but don't leave me a kid that has been tainted"? Sounds like it to me.

Registries don't deter crimes any more than laws do. All either one do is to give a false sense of security to those willing to let politicians do their thinking for them.

 

One of the most recent shootings, the resident dropped the first one in the middle of the street, than hit the other one in the get-away car, before he made it to the end of the block. Number two made it to his girlfriend's house, but did not survive the ambulance ride to the hospital. And, yes, the resident was home in time for supper. Number 1 had a gun, but the resident had a bigger one. Number 2 had a "Tennessee Toad Sticker", and was shot in the car, leaving. No charges were filed. Word has gotten around.
When you have almost 500 registered offenders within a one mile radius, it's a matter of concern. To realize that one of the guys that was at the bus stop every morning, talking to the kids, didn't have any kids on the bus, but was registered as an offender and pedophile is a matter of concern. To have the number drop to about 250 in a 5 mile radius still a lot, but you don't feel like every other house has one in residence. Yes, that does give parents a bit more confidence about the safety of their kids.
It's a proven fact that the death penalty does not deter murder. It's also a proven fact that laws and punishment do little to prevent crime. Most believe they will get away with it. Every one else gets caught, but they will get away with it. Yet, when faced with an armed resident, the retribution is "RIGHT NOW", and "INSTANT". There's no getting away with anything. That knowledge goes a long way in changing their minds about what they plan to do.

Look at how many videos you get to see on TV. Cameras in convenience stores show exactly what goes on, and who is doing it. Their chances of getting away with it is very slim. Does that stop the robberies? NO. But, face an armed cashier and the tide turns. They leave the area like ruptured ducks. I'm afraid, whether you choose to see and believe it or not, armed citizens are a deterring force against crime. Neighborhoods are proving that every day.
What I think is odd is the fact that you can kill someone, go to prison and serve your time, then get back into a truck and drive, easier than you can get into a truck and drive after a DUI, even though there was no injury, or even damage, as a result of that DUI.

 

wow... that totally blows. You'd think that after being convicted the first time, this nutbag would've gotten the message that a.) behavior like that isn't going to be tolerated, and b.) he wasn't going to get away with it, which leads to c.) prison time, and makes you think that d.) the court didn't sentence this guy long enough the first time around. Ninety-five percent of them get their acts together after a first offense, according to the DOJ. Some, like your example, evidently need to die in prison in order to get the message. MAYBE what the criminal justice system needs is to have all crimes that fall under the tier 1 (maybe even tier 2 in some cases) felony sex offender category be open-ended sentencing. In other words, prove to us that your thinking has changed significantly for the better and your risk to the community is low, and we'll let you back out. But, NOT until. Fools like the one in your example shouldn't even have to commit another crime before they get locked up again. Behavior that shows high risk after already having one conviction should be enough in and of itself to warrant incarceration. Unfortunately, "due process" would likely render such measures unconstitutional.

Some companies are going to a lifetime hire ban on murder convictions. Where DUIs are concerned, I think that exceptions SHOULD be made for drivers who can show proof of a changed lifestyle over a period of time. That would probably need to include regular unannounced blood alcohol screening as well as attendance records for a 12-step-like program that show consistency of attendance and participation. This may not be foolproof, but at least it would allow drivers who have taken steps to change their lives for the better the chance to get back to what they love doing, or perhaps simply what they must in order to earn a living.

 

I think it was last Dec. that I talked to a small fleet owner. He said his insurance company was still going to insure him to drive through 2010, but because he'd had a DUI some 18 years ago, they will no longer insure him to drive one of his own truck as Jan 2011. And, that's a guy that says he hasn't touched a drop of alcohol, in any form, for more than 10 years. Now, I have no idea just who is his insurance carrier, but I'm wondering if that's going to be "previews of coming attractions", industry wide. I believe he said he has something like 7 trucks. Mostly pulls bull-wagons and grain boxes.

I also know another guy that said he'd take a murder rap before he'd take a DUI, because the murder rap would not screw him out of driving, like a DUI would. Today, after getting rear-ended in a pick-up, and after 2 back surgeries, he's not likely to ever haul freight again, but will still take a murder rap before he'll take a DUI. You can't even get a job driving a taxi for 5 years after a DUI, because insurance will not cover you. (My wife tried that.)

 

If this becomes a trend it could create some problems for the trucking industry. There are thousands of drivers who may have had a DUI or DWI in their past and have not done anything since. I think that this insurance company is setting itself up for a major lawsuit. If they have insured him previously then they should continue to do so as long as he doesn't have another DUI or major moving violation. I just don't think that they should be able to go back that far on any driver. I don't think that they should be able to go back any further with a DUI than with any other offense. The main reason is they way the current laws are used. You can be convicted for not providing evidence against yourself. You can also be convicted if the keys are in the ignition and whether the engine is even running. I had a guy tell me that he was not even in his vehicle and having a picnic and was convicted of DUI. He was basically convicted of something that he "might" do. It is crazy. I have hired a couple of drivers who have had a DUI some years ago. I would not discount a driver simply for having a DUI as long as a considerable time had elapsed providing everything else checked out. I have come to the conclusion that no more credence should be given to a DUI as any other moving violation. If it is no longer on a persons MVR then it should not be considered.

 

Unfortunately, when it comes to a DUI or DWI, it's something that stays on your record for life. Just like, if you have EVER had a DUI, you can't go into Canada, unless you go through the process and get permission to do so. It's something they've gone WAY OVERBOARD on for some years already, and it looks like it's not over yet. In the State of Florida, it is the one violation that you can not get expunged, ever. What I don't understand is, you never hear of people getting a DUI or DWI for drugs, only alcohol. Yet, as I understand the law, it applies whether you are driving while influenced by either drugs or alcohol. With all the drug crimes, I would expect them to enforce that as well. Why don't they? A person can use crack, get stopped driving, get cited for failing to stop for a stop sign, and be let go. But, try that after a beer, and you're getting a ride to the county jail in handcuffs.

 

You know... once upon a time in this country, if you got caught committing a crime and were sentenced, once that sentence was over with, it was OVER WITH. Period. Crime done - pennance paid - fresh start, in that order. Now suddenly we have what are effectively life sentences being created by legislation ex post facto by congresses across the country for all kinds of crimes.
I fully realize that there are plenty who have committed crimes and don't go straight after their convictions, but some DO, to the point of not even getting so much as a traffic ticket afterward. Why should all who get, say... a DUI, for instance, be painted with the same brush as those who go out and do it again? It's a case once again, in my opinion, of people thinking that laws prevent crime. The voters need to wake up and realize that each law we allow like that not only steals a little bit of our national dignity, but also drastically changes the concept of "do the crime, do the time" which we've had since the beginning of this nation. One can never begin to rebuild a productive life when there is no point where forgiveness comes into play.