|
|
#51
08-12-2011, 01:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
#52
08-12-2011, 05:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well I will eat my hat!
 From NRA-ILA website (must be accurate, right?): "The firearm accident death rate is*at an all-time annual low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94% since the all-time high in 1904." Meanwhile across the Pond... Most recent murder rate UK = 1.28 per 100,000 pop (2009) Actually until sometime in the seventies, I would have been right, but the gun accident rate has kept on dropping fast. Credit due to better gun design, improved safety awareness or stricter gun controls, take your pick. Personally I do not believe that the level of crime in total is related to gun ownership - there are countries with high gun ownership levels and low crime rates (Switzerland), high guns + high crime (US), low guns + high crime (UK), and low guns +low crime (Japan?). But the expression of crime in terms of gun related murder does seem to correlate with gun ownership - hence is my arms race argument, which is a classic prisoners' dilemma problem where the optimum solution can only be achieved through the use of an outside arbitrator, ie the state. The overall crime rate is clearly a cultural matter: not primarily economic, as the left-liberals claim, although demographics and the business cycle clearly have an incremental effect. Meanwhile the way in which yanks and limeys talk past each other on this issue is also cultural, and down to the different ways in which each views the role of the state. Yanks, at least of the Red State variety, view liberty as something that is threatened by a strong state. With a weak state they feel free - to keep slaves, massacre red indians, invade Mexico etc  Guns are a totem of this freedom. Hence the rather silly arguments about how we are all doomed to end up under Nazi rule unless we have the right to bear arms. (Which ignores the fact that the Weimar republic fell because it did not control a monopoly of force, not because citizens were disempowered by gun laws). For the British a strong centralized state has historically been the source of rights and freedoms. The main threat to liberty the individual faced was not from the sovereign, but from ruthless and greedy oligarchs, whether the traditional landed aristocracy or rapacious industrialists. The state, through the mechanisms of the Crown Courts, ameliorated the depredations of the locally powerful. Indeed the recent riots in England can be seen as parallel to the American Revolution: - A section of the population feels that it lives long way away from the centre of power. - They believe that the forces of the state are biased against them and give them insufficient "respect". - The state has been attempting to prevent them from victimizing other subjects (albeit with little success). - When they are required to contribute to the finances of the state from which they have been major beneficiaries they claim they are over taxed and under represented. - When some spark ignite the flames a few opportunists organize the rest through the social media of the day and start an insurrection. - Rival militias form. - While the forces of the crown struggle to reimpose order the politicians leap at an opportunity to settle old scores.... - Civil war?
|
|
#53
08-12-2011, 05:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes i'm with you in this point. I have a Firearms License which includes the right to concealed carring a gun which is pretty hard to get here in germany right now and if something similar will happen in germany as it happens right now in London and elswhere, i will defend my self by all means and if necessary that will include the use of Deadly Force. But that will not happen, because most of them looters are cowards, when they see a gun, they go elsewhere to loot. But if necessary i will not hesitate and take actions depending on the level of Threat.
|
|
#54
08-12-2011, 06:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
By putting up the sign and not concealing their firearms (most visible had holsters on their hips) they are actually putting out a fairly strong message and therefore avoiding violence and anti-social behavior. Cheers! Last edited by Skoshi Tiger; 08-12-2011 at 06:39 AM.
|
|
#55
08-12-2011, 07:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You completely missed the point of what I was saying,whenever mentioning firearms some people here get their knickers in a twist. What you don't seem to understand that apart for most semi-autos and pistols you can have other firearms in this country,it's the attitude of public opinion and the lack of armed police officers that I find ridiculous. You think firearms should be used against firearms,but it's not the case. What leaves me utterly amazed is that the police here behaves like Dad's Army, whenever they screw up (Cumbria, riots) their answer is "we didn't expect that".. seriously?! You're a police force,you need to be able to deliver an ultimate strength service wherever necessary on the spot,not sit and look people commit crimes. A swifter and more decisive intervention in Bidmingham could have saved the lives of those guys.
|
|
#56
08-12-2011, 07:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#57
08-12-2011, 08:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
you know what, I find it frankly disturbing that in front of such massive police fails people still believe they can be protected by them. People love digging their heads in the sand here, hoping that it's never gonna happen to them.
I've heard conversation where some pride themselves with the fact that there is no need for brutal police force here..in a village in Devon though.. It's this obstinate attitude that causes what happened with the riots, if police is not a lethal threat, people will simply ignore them. And yes, there's insurances and what not to repay the damage, but for some of the damage there's no compensation that will fill the void. Do you really think that in the end, once this is over, the minority of people which will be charged with some offence will actually make things better? This lot had nothing to lose..
|
|
#58
08-12-2011, 12:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
Quote:
Oh, wait...
|
|
#59
08-12-2011, 12:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_riots
Quote:
Oh, wait....
|
|
#60
08-12-2011, 12:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The problem which most of the people arguing for freedom regarding owning a gun or not is that they usually forget that there are tons of people around, which should definitely not be able to carry a gun around and NOT being criminal. Of course, us, normally behaving and at least average intelligent human beings, can discuss this matter being pro or against. Silly things with laws (however stupid they are...) is: they have to be the same for everybody. And I absolutely not want my choleric neighbour, who tends to get angry by every little thing bothering him, to carry a gun around. And I am absolutely sure that he has a clean record and no (obvious) mental disorder. That's the way it is, all other arguments are picked.
First, you should stop bringing up over and over again examples of massacres. Even now in Norway, things like this are usually rare events compared to the amount of gun homicides, which happen on a daily basis in the US. This comparison is ridiculous, as such things can happen even with the tightest control of guns, but they will also continue to happen if everybody is carrying a gun (as the maniac is usually ready to die). Second: how many times did you actually miss a gun in your hands? I guess, that 99% of the people desperatly begging for free firearms have never been in a situation where they would have real drawbacks with NO gun in their hands. Third, don't forget that you can destroy someones life even without killing him, usually the high numbers of injuries are not taken in account in the statistics... Fourth: in a working society, there is simply not 100% freedom possible, forget about that. So there is NO right to carry around a gun, that is ridiculuous thinking of about 200 years ago... Fifth: comparing cars and guns is on an intellectual niveau I usually do not further comment. People dying in cars=accident. People dying by guns=controlled, conscious action. Even you admit, that its not the gun killing people, but the one at the trigger. Same is true for cars, so argument even further invalid... I think, "unreasonable" is right, criminal rate is a cultural matter. Of course, you would feel more safe with a gun at home, if some looters want to rob your stuff out of your house. But come one, how many times happens this in your life? And don't you think, there would be more intelligent ways to avoid looters robbing your house than just by sitting in there armed like hell? This is so shortsighted thinking that I stop commenting any further here...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
