Winnebago County Housing Authority: Fill & Download for Free

I’ll take a stab at it.You are, I take it, familiar at a glance with these guys:These are the Queen’s Guard. They are elements of the British military services, charged personally with protecting the Sovereign and Crown Residences (though as commenters have stated, there are other layers, including detachments of London MPD and MI5 that you don’t see during the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace). They are not just for show, despite preconceptions by tourists; they are a more visible and traditional version of the U.S. President’s Secret Service. Neither, you might notice, are the rifles they carry just for show. Those are not older pieces chosen for aesthetics, like the Garand rifles used by U.S. military drill teams including the President’s Own. Those are fully functional and (when actually guarding and not just on parade drill) fully loaded SA80 rifles, the primary difference from the average British soldier’s issued rifle being the nearly ubiquitous bayonet. The Queen’s Guard can, and has, used these weapons against people who encroach on the fences at Buckingham Palace. They act ceremonially, and take a lot of crap for it from passers-by, but they do not screw around.Why, in a nation with very few civilian-owned guns, no civilian handguns, and where carry of just about anything you could use as a weapon is banned, does the Queen’s Guard use guns? There are more of them than there are likely to be any troublemaking tourists. Certainly a bayonet on a staff would get the point across (NPI), and be just as practical for 99.9% of what the Guard use the guns for?The reason is simple; guns, and people with guns, are the best defense against anyone seeking to do the Queen harm, no matter what the opposition are armed with, including other guns.You might be familiar with these guys too:Those are London Metro police officers. The firearms in their hands are Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns, a couple different variants.…NOW WAIT JUST A BLOODY MINUTE! The bobbies in the UK don’t carry guns! That’s been a thing for decades! Long before the UK banned civilian handgun ownership in 1997. What the heck are these guys doing with guns?! Not just sidearms, but submachine guns! You don’t even see U.S. patrol officers slinging those across their chest, not unless it is seriously hitting the fan! If U.S. police officers on foot patrol were walking down the street with hands on a weapon like this, they would cause a panic!The answer is equally simple; these guns are the best weapon available against the substantial recent increase in violent crime and terror attacks in the UK. Simply put, it is hitting the fan in the UK. The British police understand, as anyone does, that the best counter to someone intent on killing is to engage that person outside the range of their own weapon with your own weapon capable of efficiently and effectively incapacitating that person. The best weapon for that situation is, no surprise, a gun.In fairness, as mentioned in comments, for a total police force throughout England and Wales of about 123k, there are only about 5k “authorized firearms officers” or AFOs, and only a subset of those spend their day patrolling in this kind of fashion, so this is not as common as I’m making it. However, the point stands that U.S. foot patrol officers simply do not carry these kinds of guns in plain view in the same situations British AFOs do, such as out on major market thoroughfares or in airports and sporting venues; this version of “everything is under control” is a very European phenomenon that would have most U.S. residents believing quite the opposite.So, Brits generally recognize that guns need to exist, and that someone needs to use them, because bad guys, with or without guns, exist in otherwise civilized society. The UK has done pretty much everything it can to keep as many of its police (and its citizens) unarmed as it can, and in the process they have made the UK one of the most-surveilled and least private countries in the world. And they still have to have guns.So on its face, you have no more experience of a “gun-less” country than I do here in the U.S., where there’s estimated to be at least one gun for every man, woman and child living here. You have a “less gun” society, not a “gun-less” society. The answer to your country’s uptick in violent crime has been to increase the presence of guns in public. The theory that reducing guns reduces crime is facially invalid, by the actions of your own country.What the UK has done isn’t to ban guns, or create a gun-less society; it has simply created a society in which the government has a monopoly on legal use of force. The government has absolute control over whom can legally own, possess, carry and use a firearm, and it uses this power to minimize the number of people who own firearms, especially handguns, who do not also have a government job requiring them to be armed.What you end up with, as a result of this monopoly on force, is a society in which that society’s elite are protected by firearms, and the rest of you have to catch as catch can until someone with a gun shows up. U.S. gun owners see this hypocrisy all the time, when gun control proponents in Congress and elsewhere appear on live TV with Secret Service and private bodyguards half out of frame. Nobody’s kidding anybody else about the need to have some guns. The issue is who gets those guns. Gun control proponents want only the government’s agents to have guns, because the elites in society who fund gun control efforts out of their own pockets can also legitimately expect attention from said agents regarding their personal safety, and can hire additional security and watch all the hurdles to lawful gun ownership be waved away for those security guards because of whom they’re guarding.Here’s the clincher; in the U.S., it is well-settled law that the police forces of the government have no duty to protect any individual person from criminal violence, unless they specifically and explicitly take on that responsibility. Their duty is to the public in the abstract, to preserve public order by investigating crime and apprehending suspects. Good on them; that doesn’t un-kill you, or un-rape you, or un-stab you or un-beat you or un-rob you. If you want to prevent these things and are dependent on the police to prevent them for you, you are wrong, possibly dead wrong.Many, many court cases have been heard on that subject, including at the U.S. Supreme Court, trying to find some situation, however egregious, that strains credibility as to the incompetence or apathy of the police involved, to find a line at which the law enforcement agencies of the United States must be held legally accountable for their failure to prevent or stop a violent crime. None of these legal challenges have succeeded, even though the stories behind many of the cases are horrifying. Three women being beaten and raped repeatedly for over fourteen hours by two home invaders despite two different calls to the police (Warren v. D.C.). A boy beaten into permanent mental disability by his abusive father despite regular Child Services visits which found plenty of evidence the father was beating the child (DeShaney v. Winnebago County). A woman repeatedly calling 911 to relay information on the whereabouts of her estranged husband, against whom there was an active restraining order preventing any contact with her or her kids, but nevertheless had kidnapped them, and police did nothing until he walked into a police station brandishing the gun he had just used to kill the two children (Castle Rock v. Gonzales). A man beaten and stabbed multiple times in a fight with a wanted murderer on a subway train, while the police watched from the locked operator’s cab, not intervening until the assailant had already been subdued, and testifying in sworn depositions that they did not leave the cab because they were afraid they’d be injured (Lozito v. NYC). All of these suits ultimately failed either in trial court or on appeal because the precedent is clear; local police forces or their officers cannot be held liable for any specific failure to protect one person, or a few, from criminal harm. Other lower court cases, building on these more notable ones, have further hollowed out the nature of any specific duty to help, to the extent that a police officer can literally watch a crime in progress, then turn around and walk away, and all he has to say is “I could not intervene without further escalating the situation” and he will face zero civil or criminal liability.So, the British firearms laws (and Australian and others) pointed to as models of gun control would put the country’s only weapons in the hands of people who, at least in the U.S., have absolutely no legal obligation to use them to protect members of the public unless they explicitly and proactively extend that protection to a specific person.Now, what do you get when you ban handguns and firearm carry, only allowing certain types of “traditional hunting and sporting firearms?” One quarter the total intentional homicide rate. Pretty much your only win. On the other side, you also get:Twice the assaults (2.8% of the UK reporting being an assault victim vs 1.2% of the US)Twice the rapes (0.9% reporting victimization in the UK vs 0.4% in the US)22% higher property crime rate35% higher car theft rate3 times higher total crime rate (109.96 per 1000 vs 41.29 per 1000 in the US)This is all with a comparable police force between the two countries (about 2 officers per 1000) and a comparable crime reporting rate (just over 50% of total estimated crimes committed are reported to police). Source: United Kingdom vs United States: Crime Facts and StatsThis is, of course, ignoring the relative rates of firearms-related crime. It’s grade-school logic that reducing the number of guns accessible to civilians reduces firearm-involved violent crime. Ban cars, and we will have fewer car accidents. Bravo. Suffice to say, there are fewer gun-related crimes in the UK, but not zero. So gun control is not even totally effective at what it’s supposed to do.What most anti-gun arguments commonly ignore is the effect on total violent crime, and on total crime including property crime. Statistics say total crime rates are unaffected at best by increased gun control, and most often they increase (as in the UK). The logic is obvious; when your chances of being confronted by a gun-toting homeowner are high if you were to break a window and climb into a house, you tend not to do that. If they’re very low, you’re more likely to do that. If the woman you’re tailing through the parking lot, determined to find out firsthand whether she shaves her bikini line, suddenly rounds on you, gun drawn, guess what: you’re not going to find out this little tidbit of information today, or probably ever. If, however, you know that she is very unlikely to even be carrying pepper spray or a kubotan because it’s illegal to have those, to say nothing of a handgun, then assuming you’re bigger, stronger and faster than her you’ll very probably get a good look below the waist, and more.This is the reason that in the United States, 67% of all gun owners own a handgun, 71% of those that have only one gun own a handgun, and 60% of all respondents, when asked “why do you own a gun”, answered with some variant of “personal protection”. On top of this, surveys of gun owners and non-gun-owners alike show a 65% majority in favor of concealed carry (and a poll of sworn law enforcement officers shows a staggering 91% in favor), saying they think the practice increases public safety. Only 25% of the country favors an outright handgun ban. There is majority support for other measures; universal background checks, gun registration, ownership licenses contingent on education courses and practical qualification. But very few in the U.S. are talking about banning all guns, because very few in the U.S. look at the measures taken by police to curb crime without guns in London and want the same measures to be taken here. Those that do, usually either haven’t gotten a good look at what goes on in your country, or they’re wealthy individuals who will be on the winning side of the change, able to surround themselves with armed guards while the rest of us do our best without them.

The US Constitution has been alleged to serve as a sort of contract between the people in general and their new "servants" in Congress. One cannot, by signing a contract, bind someone else to an agreement. The idea that a few dozen wealthy landowners could enter an agreement on behalf of over two million other people is absurd.No contract can ever simply create a right which was previously held by none of its participants, which is all that Government constitutions pretend to do. The form of the document itself makes it clear that it was not an actual contract of agreement but an attempt to fabricate out of thin air the right to rule... no matter how "limited" it was supposed to be.An actual agreement by contract is fundamentally different from any document purporting to create a Government. If a thousand American colonists had signed an agreement saying, "We agree to give a tenth of whatever we produce in exchange for the protection services of the George Washington Protection Company," they would be morally bound by such an agreement. But they cannot bind anyone else to the agreement nor could they use such an agreement to give the George Washington Protection Company the right to start robbing or otherwise controlling people who had nothing to do with the contract.While the Constitution pretends to authorize Congress to do various things, it does not actually require Congress to do anything. (In DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 US 189, even the US Supreme Court officially declared that Government has no actual duty to protect the public.) Who in their right mind would sign a contract which did not bind the other party to do anything?The Constitution, rather than being a brilliant, useful, valid contract, was instead an attempt by a handful of men to unilaterally subject millions of other people to the control of a machine of forcible coercion in exchange for no guarantee of anything.In order to fabricate "consent" where there is none, they come up with the notion of "implied consent" or The Social Contract. The claim is that simply by living in a town, state or country, one is "agreeing" to abide by whatever "rules" happen to be issued by the people who claim to have the imagined right to rule that town,state or country. If someone does not like the "rules", they are free to leave the town, state or country altogether. If they choose not to leave, that somehow constitutes giving their "consent" to be controlled by the imagined rulers.This very idea defies common sense. One person cannot decide what counts as someone else "agreeing" to something. It makes no more sense than a carjacker stopping a driver out on a Sunday ride and telling him, "By driving a car in this neighborhood on Sunday, you are agreeing to give me your car."An agreement is when two or more people communicate a mutual willingness to voluntarily enter into some arrangement.Simply being born somewhere is not agreeing to anything, nor is living in ones own house when some politician has declared it to be within the realm he rules. It’s one thing to say, "If you wish to ride in my car... you may not smoke," or "You may enter my house... only if you take your shoes off." It is quite another matter to try to tell people what they can do on their own property. Whoever has the right to stipulate rules for a particular place is, by definition, the owner of that place. That’s the very basis of the idea of private property. The owner of a house has exclusive right to keep others out of it, and by extension, the right to tell visitors what is permissible as long as they are in the house.To tell someone that their only valid choices are either to leave the "country" or to abide by whatever commands the politicians issue, this logically implies that everything in that "country" is the property of the politicians.Not only is the theory of "implied consent" fundamentally flawed, but obvious reality disintegrates it like a sugar cube in boiling water. Any Government which had the consent of its subjects would have no need for "law" enforcers. Enforcement only happens if someone does not consent to something. Every individual knows that those in power do not care whether the citizens consent to abide by their "laws". Politicians' orders will be carried out, by brute force if necessary, with or without any individuals' consent.The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which followed some years later, were a combination of profound insight and glaring contradictions. The Declaration spoke of unalienable rights and asserted that "all men are created equal", as far as their rights are concerned. Such a concept completely rules out any possibility of a legitimate ruling class, even a very limited one.The very principles were then immediately contradicted by their efforts to create a protector Government. One day they were declaring that "all men are created equal" and the next, they were declaring that some men (calling themselves "Congress") had the right to rob ("tax") everyone else (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1).The American Revolution was a hodge-podge of conflicting ideas... some supporting individual sovereignty, some supporting a ruling class. The Declaration asserts that when any Government becomes destructive of individual rights (as every institutional Government always does) the moment it comes into existence, the people have a duty to alter or abolish it. Yet, the Constitution claims to give Congress the power to "suppress insurrections" (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15). This implies that the people have a right to resist Government oppression, but that Government has a right to violently crush them when they do.In some places, the Founding Fathers described quite well the concept of self-ownership... in others, they sought to create a ruling class. They did not seem to notice that the two agendas are utterly incompatible with each other. The most valuable thing the Great American Experiment has accomplished was to demonstrate that “limited Government” is impossible. There cannot be a master who answers to his slaves. There cannot be a ruler who is both above the people and subordinate to them.Unfortunately, there are those who refuse to learn this lesson... insisting instead that the Constitution did not fail, the people failed... by not doing it right, by not being vigilant enough, or by some other neglect or corruption. Oddly, this is the same excuse given by communists for why their flawed philosophy when put into practice in the real world always turns into violent oppression.———————————————There are two basic ways that people interact with each other: by mutual agreement... or by forcible coercion using threats or violence to force their will and control upon another.The first can be distinguished as "consent"... both sides willingly and voluntarily agree to what is to be done.The second can be distinguished as "governing"... one person controlling another.Since consent and governing are opposites, the concept of "consent of the governed" is a pointedly foolish contradiction. If there is mutual consent, there is no governing. If there is governing, there is no consent.It is claimed that a majority or "the people as a whole" have given their consent to be ruled even if many individuals have not. No one (individually or as a group) can give consent for something to be done to someone else. That is simply not what "consent" means. It defies logic to say, "I give my consent for you to be robbed."Yet, that is the very basis of the cult of "Government"... the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority. That is not "consent of the governed"... it is forcible control of the governed with the blessings of a third party.Even if someone were wacky enough to actually tell someone else, "I agree to let you forcibly control me"... the very moment the “controller” finds it necessary to force the "controllee" to do something, it is obviously no longer consent. Prior to that moment, there is no governing... only voluntary cooperation. The very notion of "consent of the governed" is schizophrenic... it states, "I agree to let you force things upon me whether I agree to them or not."

Here is a gun-free solution to the mass shooter problem in schools. But everyone needs to participate.If you look at the bigger picture, rather than just school shootings, but include things like suicide, one of the main ingredients in all these situations involve lack of discipline that allows bullying, viz, inter-student harassment.From looking at many of the examples in the press and here on Quora, bullying appears a main ingredient in both shootings and suicides. By increasing discipline, ergo, reducing bullying, it seems reasonable to reduce both these problems. And, more than that, it can improve the atmosphere for intellectual pursuit, increase academic performance and make the school a better place for students and faculty alike.But how to make that happen?Schools are required by law to provide a safe and harmonious environment for students. Students are required by law to be there, and like other institutions with a legal duty to house or contain people in their care, they have a further duty under law to provide a safe environment for them.The most obvious example is someone either under arrest or in jail. The enforcing jurisdiction has liability for damages incurred should a person be injured or killed while in their custody.The same duty applies to schools. Given they have custodial authority over the students while they are in school, they, like the police have a duty to provide a safe environment to people in their custody.Going back to the examples noted above, many schools lacking effective discipline apparently have a bullying problem. This should not be the case. Given that school administrators have a duty to provide a safe environment for students, bullying should not exist.However, the reason it is allowed to exist is that parents can, but do not intercede on behalf of their children for problems caused by administrators failing to provide that safe environment.There are numerous stories of students having complained to the school about another out of control student, a bully, and the school doing nothing about it. The affected student then has to stand up for themselves in the form of self-help. The students who were the victims of the now protected aggressor then wind up being disciplined for having to engage in reasonable self-defense against the bully.The situation should not exist.This is where all parents have an opportunity to address the problem. Pro gun, anti-gun, I don’t care gun, parents can address the discipline/bullying issue by insisting that administrators work to provide a better environment to improve discipline and eliminate bullying.Currently the problem is that parents tolerate the situation far too much, likely because they are not aware of their rights, nor how to address the discipline problems they have in their school. The schools are otherwise reluctant to address the issue because bad press and budgets don’t mix).But parents do have the ability to do something about it.Given that schools are government sponsored agencies, they are bound by these laws:42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of lawAnd here is a court case that deals with the question: DeShaney v. Winnebago County - WikipediaIt is possible to remind the administration from the school level to the school board of their duty to provide a safe and studious place for students to attend. When there is a disciplinary problem involving an aggressive student, a bully, parents of the targeted student should not have to take a lack of response from the school as an answer.Rather, using the above laws as a basis, they should demand an appropriate response from school officials to address the bullying problem lest it get out of hand and result in something more sinister-something we all seek to avoid.This ability to stave off future possible mass shootings and/or suicides already exists and does not require new laws, armed guards or additional funding.All it takes is action on the part of concerned parents.