Brown says knife-carrying "unacceptable"

Well I missed that. Our land-use regulations are usually set by local authorities, and NCT's local situation may differ. Being local doesn't necessarily mean they are good regulations, since the folks who serve on planning commisions tend to be those who have a personal stake and are pro-development of all sorts. But overall we have no lack of zoning and land-use laws in the US.

 

Why should gang-related murders be taken out of the equation? We have gangs here too, though probably not on the scale you do. And is a "gang-related murder" any the less murder?

 

Our land use restrictions are more liberal than most. They are still to restrictive to me. The example Matt used of

is much closer to what I believe they should be. If the land belongs to you then I think you should be able to do whatever you want and I would include strip mining or the disposal of toxic waste. The only restrictions I would put would be if it affects neighboring land like if I pour clorine in a stream on my property and it kills fish downstream. To me that is liberty. Now if the land doesn't really belongs to me but belongs to the King or the "People" (communism) then you can put any restrictions you want on it. But if its my land I should be free to do what I want.

When we talk about loosing our freedom in small steps I think land use restrictions are a great example of how we in America are loosing the rights earlier generations worked so hard to win and protect. The fact that emminent domain can be used to condemn and seize my land scares me a lot more than the idea that Nancy Pelosi will take away my revolver.

 

I see the right of self defense equal to landownership.

 

I can't agree with the sort of free-for-all land usage you're espousing here, NCT. "One man's meat is another man's poison": I for one would be greatly unhappy if my neighbour was allowed to do that sort of thing on his property; quite apart from adversely affecting my enjoyment of my own private property, it would drastically reduce the value of my property, and I would expect to be compensated for my resulting losses on both fronts. Now, if I'm a rich man, that's perhaps not too much of a problem: I can launch a civil action in the law courts against my neighbour for nuisance and get my money that way. But what if I'm a poor man? It seems to me therefore that this kind of free-for-all can only benefit the rich and powerful, and I seem to recall that the Bible has quite a bit to say on that issue...

 

People in gangs are usually there because they choose to be. A lifestyle choice you could say, and killing rival gang-members is part of the deal for them. Sort of a private war, and not related to mainstream life. Yes I'm sure there are many more gangs here than in the UK.

 

Yes sir, I generally agree. The thing is that in high density areas, everything you do affects lots of other people. My parents were country people, and they pretty much built what they wanted, and used their land as they saw fit. It's not the same in a city though.

 

Depends how the fight starts; usually over here they are drunken brawls on a Friday or Saturday night where all parties are committing a number of criminal offences. So, yes, anything that reduces the number of fatal stabbings is to be welcomed. Surely you don't want to increase the numbers?

 

I tried to find any statistics about stabbings in prison, but failed. All I can say is that it seems a very rare occurence indeed here, compared to what appears to happen in America.