Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Homeland Securaty, Safe streets, CCW, and liberal politics

Leanwolf, I didn't mean that Castro's boys were no good what I meant is that while they had lots of training in small unit hit and run training I don't know how much they had operating as an integrated army.

Sure enough they had enough to overwhelm another bunch of wildeyed invaders.


As you said Castro's boys wasn't up against a first class fighting force anyway, despite individual bravery of some of the invaders.



BCR

I mean that we don't live in a vaccuum. You can't protect your house without first protecting your country.

___________________________________________________

BCR, FWIW, by the time of the invasion at the Bay of Pigs, April, 1961, Castro had an army of 200,000 men, regular army and armed militia. His army had been being trained by Russian Army "advisers" for more than a year.

Castro had artillery, tanks, and complete control of the air.

200,000 troops, well armed, with the above assets, vs. 1,400 men with small arms and no air support (compliments of Pres. Kennedy) = DISASTER!

As said, there was much blame to go around: very poor planning on the part of CIA's Richard Bissell, his chief assistant, Tracy Barnes, and their main military advisor, USMC Col. Jack Hawkins.

And President Kennedy, Bobby, and Robert McNamara, knew virtually nothing about strategic or tactical military planning, so when J.F.K. broke under political pressure and called off the second air strike that might have made a large difference, at least to the exiles being wiped up, his contribution to the failure was as significant as the CIA's.

Later, Jack & Bobby decided to solve the "Castro Problem" by having the CIA assassinate Castro. That one didn't quite work out, either.

Oh well, 47 years after the fact, perhaps we won't have ol' Fidel around too much longer.

L.W.



The exiles' invasion force numbered only 1,400 men, who wee not well trained, nor organized.

200,000

Where can I get those stats concerning CCW laws and lower crime. Can you point me to a web site?

It would be good information for a Canuck like me to have when I debate guns and gun ownership with the "anti's" up here.

Somewhere in my class desk I have an old article I've kept that showed the rates of private gun ownership in Switzerland, Sweden and Isreal as being extremely high - and yet their respective murder rates (not counting wars) to be very low.

You're preaching to the converted here - but facts - from a reliable source, trump plain old "facts" anytime - I want the source and site in hand when I debate the uninformed.

Some reading and a few links.

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm

Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime

Major crime fell dramatically in states which have legalized the carrying of concealed handguns, according to a comprehensive new study at the University of Chicago.

For the first time, researchers analyzed crime statistics for all 3,054 counties in the United Sates between 1977 and 1992, according to one of the authors of the unpublished study, Professor John Lott. After adjusting for a general fall in crime rates, the study found that:

* In the 31 states that now have "concealed right to carry" laws, murders were down, on average, by 8.5 percent.

* Rapes were down 5 percent and serious assaults by 7 percent.

* In cities with populations of more than 250,000, murder rates dropped after the passage of such laws by an average of 13.5 percent.

According to the study, the fall in crime did not result from an increased use of guns, but from potential criminals avoiding confrontations. In fact, criminals apparently shifted to lower-risk offenses, since property crimes increased in those states. Other findings included:

* The most dramatic falls in murder rates were in areas where the number of women carrying firearms was high.

* The study found that for every woman who carries a concealed hand, the murder rate fell by three to four times more than it would have if one more man had carried a concealed gun.

* If states with concealed handgun bans had allowed them in 1992, about 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and more than 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided.

In addition, the researchers found no evidence of an increase in accidental killings or suicides in states with concealed carry laws.

Sources: Ian Katz, "'Gun Law' Cuts Crime Rate, US Study Finds," Guardian, August 3, 1996, and Dennis Cauchon, "Study: Weapons Laws Deter Crime: Fewer Rapes, Murders Found Where Concealed Guns Legal," USA Today, August 2, 1996.

Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security | Debate Central | Contact Us
Dallas Headquarters: 12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800 - Dallas, TX 75251-1339 - 972/386-6272 - Fax 972/386-0924
Washington Office: 601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 900 South Building - Washington, DC 20004 - 202/220-3082 - Fax 202/220-3096
� 2001 NCPA




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry
Statistics cited by pro-gun advocates

FBI Uniform Crime Report (1992) shows that 70% of violent crimes are committed by 7% of criminals, many of whom are on probation or are given parole and early-release. Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed Individuals; 40% state that they have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.
� 2001 NCPA



http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

http://www.policyreview.org/jul96/labs.html

There has been a lower murder rate, and in most places a lower serious crime rate since the CCW laws took effect.

That's not to say there's a link between cause and effect.

You can got to the FBI crime statistics, google it, and see it. There are peaks and glitches, but it is generally true that serious crime has dropped. I think CCW, but mostly because the serious offenders are behind bars.

Look out in another five years or so. The current crop of dope related murders will be getting out of jail.

Gene,
Have you had opportunity to read LtCol Dave Grossman or attend one of his seminars? He does a number of seminars for Law Enforcement and the military. I had opportunity to see him twice on our last deployment.

Great speaker and has 2 great books On Killing and On Combat that I highly recommend.

Although he would agree that the murder rate is down he would disagree that the violent crime rate is down, and with the cause/effect of CCW. Instead he attributes the drop in murders to better and more accessible trauma care.

Bob

Yeah, I've heard him on two occasions. Great speaker, and I have all (I think) of his books.

He may be right. But there is an undeniable decline in "serious crimes," disegarding crimes that cause death. A serious crime would be attempted murder, for example, where a person is saved by a ICU unit.

I think the decline, personally, is the increased incarcaration of people who commit crimes. I can't defend this, but it's what I believe.

Hitler needed money and a place for Europe's loot to be traded for the Gold and Silver to buy the material needed to keep the War Machine running. The Swiss filled the roll. You just can print money, money has to have something behind it to back it up, in the old days money was Gold, then Silver Diamonds . Then it became paper backed by Gold and Silver, then it became what a Nation state puts out in economic output. Hitler needed money, not only to buy stuff, but also to pay the soldiers and the people for the work, except for the slaves. Nothing was done to the Swiss because they also played ball with the Allies, more so. World War I I was fought and won, not only with Arms and Armies ,but with lawyers and Bankers. And the Bankers were way more usefull than one would belive. This current war , bankers are really valuable, because if you can find the money, you find the enemy, find the enemy you then have targets for military, and targets for the intel guys with regard to the ones paying for it. During WW-II it was not known that the allies were reading hitlers mail because some poles got the code machine enigmia out , I wonder what is really being done with the computers in this one. The great grand kids my get to read of it.

I'm with Gene
The more bad guys in jail the fewer crimes. I also think there is a different attitude among Americans. We got tired of crime and no punishment in the 1970's and 1980's. We won't stand for the crime and if you do it expect to pay the price with more time in jail or prison. Plus the fact the home owner may shoot a hole in your dumb a$$ if you go in his house with evil on your mind. I think the 2nd Amendment is more than the right to own guns. There is a "don't tread on me" kind of attitude that goes with it. kwg

I've met with and had conversations with quite a few Russians, including a few who were up in the military of the former Soviet Union, or related/connected thereto, and their take on an invasion of the U.S. was that it would have been suicide.

Why?

An armed populace, esp. in the rural and mountain areas (i.e. the hardest to control) who knew the lay of the land, how and where to find and get supplies, and how and where to make the best use of their firearms.

I.e. a Russian invasion of the U.S. was NEVER an option precisely because we had privately owned firearms.

Give the U.N. and Hillary Clinton long enough, though, and that becomes just a footnote in history...