Britain's gun laws and what we could have learned from them

I know the U.S. is a different country than Great Britain, but they are our closest of allies and once in a while we might consider that we don't have the best answers as to how to live in a peaceful society. Sometimes we can learn from others. It is too late to roll back the clock, but it is worthwhile to look at the gun laws in Britain. This from Wikipedia:

Gun politics in the United Kingdom

"Gun politics in the United Kingdom generally places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. Despite its largely urbanised population, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. Its police officers do not routinely carry a firearm, and both the public and the police prefer this to continue. Gun ownership levels have traditionally been low. This was the case even before the imposition of modern firearm legislation. Hunting with firearms was always a relatively elite activity and 'gun sports' relatively uncommon. Recent mass shootings by persons with licenced rifles and hand guns have led to what is believed to be some of the strictest firearms legislation in the world.

In Scotland, since power to legislate on firearms was reserved to the UK Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998 that established a Scottish Parliament, this has led to tensions between Westminster and Holyrood with the Scottish Government wanting to enact still stricter laws."

Maybe its time we do something and pass some gun restriction laws with teeth and get the guns off the streets! What do you think?

Is Obama's victory a turning point for the World?

This is the morning after the greatest election in 221 years. We are a young Nation since our Founding Fathers vision set us on a course of action that would forever change history and the planet. By electing Barack Obama as President, we have done what Great Britain and our Nato Allies have never been able to do. We elected, one of our minority citizens of African decent, our President of all the people. While we celebrate this as a Country, I hope that other nations will examine how they have treated their minorities and will ask their minorities to examine themselves as to whether they are investing in their own education and embracing an imperfect society by being a part of it and a part of the societal change in a non violent way. Is it possible that Great Britain could achieve this? Yes, but it might take them another 221 years. But at least they now have an example to follow.

Michael Moore's "Sicko": A review

I saw the movie today with my wife. While it certainly contained necessary humor, there was nothing funny about the movie. This is dead serious stuff and if we don't stand up and do something to make Universal Healthcare a reality, we are going to hate ourselves as we aren't going to be taken care of properly in our old age. I cried several times as I saw the suffering of people with many serious ailments who were turned away or denied care. And yet the comparison to Great Britain's National Healthcare System, as well as that of France's and Canada's, made me wonder what happened to us that we gave away our rights on healthcare many years ago. It's time to reclaim them. And if it takes marching in the streets, raising our voices to get the attention to this that must be given and we stay disengaged, then we and our families, deserve a lonely, suffering life. Wake up America. We're asleep at the wheel and are about to crash! Do yourself and your family a favor, see the movie and bring a friend. It is Michael Moore's finest film as well as the most sobering and realistic one of his career. Bravo Michael, you're a true American hero! I know some of these Healthcare Executives and they should hang their head in shame with the amount of money they took as compensation, during their stewardship.

Bloomberg speculation mania and what it means

The latest buzz about the possible Presidential bid by Bloomberg as a third party candidate makes one thing very clear; no one candidate has enough support for President yet to ward off newcomers. The American public hasn't digested Giuliani's entrance into the race and his quick gain over McCain. Then add the recent announcement of Fred Thompson throwing his hat into the ring, and the fact that he hasn't got enough appeal to garner enough support to ward off newcomers. Now Bloomberg, with his $Billions can easily invest $500 Million for his bid for President and never be specifically beholding to special interest groups that he isn't already a beholden. As the polls have indicated each candidate will have about 20-25% of the maximum voters supporting them, with many in the single digits like Ron Paul. Therefore, the key to winning the Party's nomination is in how well they can put together a unique Strategic Plan given the following scenario.

There will not be any clear winners in either party during the Primary process and this means that the candidates for President for each Party will most likely be decided by the "delegates" to the respective Party Conventions, and not directly by the American people. Unless someone emerges to have at least 40% of the vote, it will be an inconclusive Primary with a majority of big States holding their primaries in February. Some of the bigger names like Hillary and Rudy could possibly win some large States, while lesser candidates gain delegates from smaller States. What's key to a winning strategy? It is at the Conventions of each Party, working the floor at the Convention and wooing delegates to turn their loyalties. To do that you need a strong political machine. Currently that puts Hillary in one of the seats and no one candidate in the Republican Party has the machine at this time other than surprisingly, Mitt Romney, even though his numbers are not leading in Polls. Bloomberg will be on the ticket no matter which candidate is put up by each Party. So right now it looks like Hillary for the Democrats, Bloomberg and either Romney or Thompson fro Republicans. Conservatives will not embrace Rudy. So 2 of the three Presidential candidates will be from NY no matter what happens. There will be very interesting Conventions, more along the lines of in the old days where there was uncertainty as to who the candidates for each Party would be. But again, the problem is that it's more like horse trading than consensus building. The winners in those events are the candidates. The losers are the American people. And this is what we call democracy that we want to export to the rest of the world. I am strating to like other systems that seem to work better than ours. Several examples of working Democracies are India, Israel and another is Great Britain., each having its own uniqueness and different from ours, but worth looking into at least to educate oneself. But that is for a different time and I have no idea, as to what would be better system now, but the whole world needs us to put up our best person for President, not our worst, like we did in the last election.