1 posted on
12/29/2003 1:15:10 AM PST by
kattracks
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
ping
2 posted on
12/29/2003 1:15:44 AM PST by
kattracks
To: kattracks
B-b-b-b-but this just can't be. NYC and Washington D.C. have strict gun control whereas every Iraqi male is allowed to own an assault rifle!
3 posted on
12/29/2003 1:22:57 AM PST by
Stultis
To: kattracks
A considerable achievement indeed, given that Iraq had to endure a ferocious dictatorship until 2003, which generally leads to looting sprees, murders and all kinds of vendettas...
All in all, a great success for US, coalition and Iraqi forces. Soon the insurgents will feel the winds of change, too, as more and more people will no longer be afraid of them.
To: Molly Pitcher
Ping!
7 posted on
12/29/2003 2:28:56 AM PST by
ABG(anybody but Gore)
(...And second prize goes to Kenny, for his Edward James Olmos impersonation!)
To: kattracks
By contrast, New York's murder rate is seven murders per 100,000 people, Los Angeles' murder rate is 17 per 100,000, and Chicago's is 22, Lott said, citing FBI crime statistics. Chicago worse than LA? I never would've thunk it. The spirit of the midwestern gangsters lives on I guess.
9 posted on
12/29/2003 3:05:51 AM PST by
#3Fan
To: kattracks
It might be because the biggest murderer has been caught in a spider hole, and the other two are already dead.
11 posted on
12/29/2003 4:25:03 AM PST by
chainsaw
To: kattracks
The newest numbers, released by the Army's 1st Infantry Division, reveal that over the past three months, murders and other crimes in Baghdad are decreasing dramatically and that in the month of October, there were fewer murders per capita there than the Big Apple, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Guess the Bush administration had a postwar plan after all. Dean, Kerry, Gephardt et al. simply weren't bright enough or too self-interested to figure it out. One thing is certain: If Gore or any of them had been president, there would indeed have been a quagmire. That experience they have.
12 posted on
12/29/2003 5:03:46 AM PST by
OESY
To: kattracks
Yes the Americans allowed people to retain their small arms. The Brits were trying to take them away, which figures, given their track record on guns.
The point though is that allowing people to retain personal firearms for 'their protection' is a lot better than what the anti-gun nuts would like to do in this country.
20 posted on
12/29/2003 9:53:05 AM PST by
vladog
To: kattracks
That is because they don't have the ACLU to contend with.,
21 posted on
12/29/2003 9:59:46 AM PST by
ODDITHER
To: kattracks
bump for later study
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson