water cannon

[Lixma]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_riots

Property damage: 8,973 vehicles (Not including buildings)
Monetary damage: Estimated at €200 Million.
Arrests: 2,888
Deaths: 2
Police and firefighters injured: 126

If only the French pulled their head out of the sand and armed their police none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait....

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Lixma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

If only the police were armed none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait...

Originally Posted by Lixma

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_riots

If only the French pulled their head out of the sand and armed their police none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait....

yeah, truth is that those were real riots, whereas what happened here was mainly looting. Things could have gone way out of hand in those two contexts if there was no armed police forces.

You know what, in the end of the day it's your choice, your obstinate position on this has bore its consequences (Cumbria shooting, Hungerford, Monkseaton, Dunblane), again because you weren't affected directly by it. Truth is that police couldnt do its job properly because they're untrained and unarmed, which defies the concept of policing.

Yes, if you're a citizen brought up with certain moral standards this is the kind of policing you will need, but when such a huge component of your society is made by people that don't give a toss about anything and have nothing to lose, you have these phenomena happening in an alarming copycat chain.

I for one care about and respect the society I live in and will do what I can to protect it and my household, and know that police forces unfortunately can't be everywhere all the time.

Firearms are not just meant for defence, they have other uses, believe it or not, but fortunately I am given the possibility to choose and have them, what really really annoys me is all these advocates for a no-firearms society, which are frankly delusional and dont have the faintest idea of the world they live in.

All I can hope for is that you will never find yourself in a position when you might really do with one, cos it's not gonna be fun..

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

You know what, in the end of the day it's your choice, your obstinate position on this has bore its consequences (Cumbria shooting, Hungerford, Monkseaton, Dunblane), again because you weren't affected directly by it.

Wow.

[Lixma]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I'm sorry but that's a gross generalisation...

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Yes, if you're a citizen brought up with certain moral standards this is the kind of policing you will need, but when such a huge component of your society is made by people that don't give a toss about anything and have nothing to lose, you have these phenomena happening in an alarming copycat chain.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Firearms are not just meant for defence, they have other uses, believe it or not, but fortunately I am given the possibility to choose and have them, what really really annoys me is all these advocates for a no-firearms society, which are frankly delusional and dont have the faintest idea of the world they live in.

You are awesome.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Lixma

You are awesome.

I don't get your point.

[nearmiss]

Does anyone think that the Eastern Block countries, East Germany, Romania, etc. would have put up with the Russia communist oppression for over 50 years if they'd have had guns? They would have tried to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the people in Somalia "today" would be under the oppression of the war lords, if the general population had access to guns?
They would try to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the oppression in Darfur would be going on if the persecuted people had guns? They would try to do something to resist.

When people are empowered with the will resist, or they have guns and guts, they can make oppressors seek easier prey.

Guns are harmless, they are just metal objects like cars, hammers, screwdrivers, etc. You can kill someone with any of the three in the hands of the wrong person.

Guns can be a tool of dubious value of course against government oppression.

When Russia was at war with Afghanistan they had the big helicopter gun ships with the extremely fast "guns". The Russians could wipe out an entire village with one 4 second fly by. The Afghans were helpless with their handguns against such weapons and a well equipped enemy. America gave the Afghans the SAM, RPG. The Afghans began to knock down those gunships. This was a war too costly to continue for Russia, they loaded up and left.

Guns have a place, but in modern day warfare I'd say it is mostly in the minds of the people that think the ordinary handgun will be their salvation. Guns are not an end all solution to oppresive or aggressive governments. Guns can enable the people to resist and make subjugation of those people very difficult for aggressors.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Guns have a place, but in modern day warfare I'd say it is mostly in the minds of the people that think the ordinary handgun will be their salvation.

well mate, if/when the s**t really hits the fan, I doubt you'll save yourself with sophisms..

[Sternjaeger II]

+ 1000 to ruggbutt


you can actually see it in the arrogance and patronising attitude of their posts.. the conception and tolerance for others' ideas and principles is quite a random one here..

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

well mate, if/when the s**t really hits the fan, I doubt you'll save yourself with sophisms..

When it comes to shove back I think consideration of your adversary is important. If you are getting shot at....

I'd say IED and handguns can do a world of hurt as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One thing about a gun, if you pull a gun on someone bluffing time is over. You shoot the dude, unless he becomes a whimpering mass of obsequious jelly.

I don't have much use for guns in daily life, but I do own many. It is really not good sense to discuss your gun ownership in most countries. The governments are very frightened of their own populations, look at London, Greece, Ireland... no sense going on about it. People all over the world are having real issues with their governments.

Guns can contribute significantly against government tyranny.

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Does anyone think that the Eastern Block countries, East Germany, Romania, etc. would have put up with the Russia communist oppression for over 50 years if they'd have had guns? They would have tried to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the people in Somalia "today" would be under the oppression of the war lords, if the general population had access to guns?
They would try to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the oppression in Darfur would be going on if the persecuted people had guns? They would try to do something to resist.

When people are empowered with the will resist, or they have guns and guts, they can make oppressors seek easier prey.

Guns are harmless, they are just metal objects like cars, hammers, screwdrivers, etc. You can kill someone with any of the three in the hands of the wrong person.

Guns can be a tool of dubious value of course against government oppression.

When Russia was at war with Afghanistan they had the big helicopter gun ships with the extremely fast "guns". The Russians could wipe out an entire village with one 4 second fly by. The Afghans were helpless with their handguns against such weapons and a well equipped enemy. America gave the Afghans the SAM, RPG. The Afghans began to knock down those gunships. This was a war too costly to continue for Russia, they loaded up and left.

Guns have a place, but in modern day warfare I'd say it is mostly in the minds of the people that think the ordinary handgun will be their salvation.

That my friend is the reason you have the 2nd amendment in America. Perhaps the world doesn't understand that the Constitution in America does not state what the government will do for you or it's obligation towards its people. It is a charter of negative liberties against the government to restrain it. And specifically the 2nd amendment is not there to prevent authorities from not allowing people to own guns. Read this next part very carefully. It is there to prevent the government from turning on its people and changing it into any other system that the people do not authorize. It is a written threat and a promise that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not for sport. Not for coolness. But to CONTROL GOVERNMENT. Not the body itself. But the once in a while socialist that gets out of hand. We get torches and pitchforks first then elections and then the 2nd amendment remedy is there.