Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
also, before i forget, where in the world did you come up with the idea that americans were forced to have guns? is that an actual belief you sincerely hold, or is it just something that sounded good to say at the moment that might have (at the time) seemed to support your argument?
........... banning smoking in public places will cut down on the amount of medical care that you will have to provide to smokers out of your own pocket, ......
Actually, smokers will smoke outside in the cold thus 1. increasing the number of colds they will spread to others and 2. the rate of serious illness which began as a cold will increase.
does that mean that smoking in public is not allowed, or that the dutch public is not allowed to smoke, period?
It means that smoking in public areas is forbidden by law.
If people wanna smoke in their own home ( and expose their loved ones to 2nd hand smoke) that is their business. Smoking in public is forbidden in The Netherlands to protect the employers from having to end up paying the health bills of their employees.
The exact same argument could be used for gun laws in America.
Quote:
also, before i forget, where in the world did you come up with the idea that americans were forced to have guns? is that an actual belief you sincerely hold, or is it just something that sounded good to say at the moment that might have (at the time) seemed to support your argument?
From what I understand no American would trust his neighbour implicitly? So it would only be logical to arm yourself if your neighbour is packing heat.
Actually, smokers will smoke outside in the cold thus 1. increasing the number of colds they will spread to others and 2. the rate of serious illness which began as a cold will increase.
b) if you read the post, you'll see that what you quoted was not my argument; it was that of the forum member that i was addressing.
c) different topic entirely, but our governments (both american and dutch in this case) have really confused the definition of public versus private property. i would have smokers smoke in *private* restaurants and stores, rather than on the streets, in the parks, etc. if they want to kill themselves, allow them to do it along with those that want to partake in the same (the patrons of the smoking-allowed businesses, private homes, etc), and keep it off the street where those that don't like it, including children, have to deal with it while waiting for the bus, etc.
ahem. back on topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D
Originally Posted by stycotlIt means that smoking in public areas is forbidden by law.
If people wanna smoke in their own home ( and expose their loved ones to 2nd hand smoke) that is their business. Smoking in public is forbidden in The Netherlands to protect the employers from having to end up paying the health bills of their employees.
that is great if it is true. but this is an entirely different reason than that which you claimed in your last post. so which one is it?
Quote:
The exact same argument could be used for gun laws in America.
From what I understand no American would trust his neighbour implicitly? So it would only be logical to arm yourself if your neighbour is packing heat.
what exact same argument could be used? that americans are forced to have weapons? forced to smoke? that the dutch are? i'm missing your point.
whether or not you trust your neighbors is irrelevant to the point of americans being forced to own guns, which was what you earlier claimed. or was that an attempt at hyperbole?
however, if i don't trust my neighbors, you can be sure that i would be taking more widespread precautions than just acquiring a weapon (which i already own anyway, and i trust my neighbors). security and safety require more than one line of defense; guns don't answer every issue, and no one here has claimed that they do. but the anti-gun crowd keeps using that supposed argument as the basis of many of their judgments and the justification for many of their insults, generalizations, and emotional responses.
so again, do you actually believe that americans are forced to own guns? if not, then why post it? feel free to keep ignoring that query too if you desire.
Originally Posted by stycotlIt means that smoking in public areas is forbidden by law.
If people wanna smoke in their own home ( and expose their loved ones to 2nd hand smoke) that is their business. Smoking in public is forbidden in The Netherlands to protect the employers from having to end up paying the health bills of their employees.
No, what it means is there is no limit to the amount of regulation that the subjects of the Kingdom of the Netherlands will submit to.
Quote:
The exact same argument could be used for gun laws in America.
Not in a reality based arguement.
Quote:
From what I understand no American would trust his neighbor implicitly? So it would only be logical to arm yourself if your neighbour is packing heat.
Thats the trouble, you do not understand. I trust my neighbor implicitly with anything he chooses to own. I dont fear them if they have guns anymore than I fear those that have cars, less actually since cars routinely cause death & damage. Dont know anyone who's been shot accidentally but I know plenty been in accidents.
The truth is that you dont trust your neighbors & they dont trust you. Your entire country is so rife with paranoia it outlaws things instead of actions.
Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte The thing is that here in The Netherlands smoking is banned from the public domain.
Not because the Dutch government wants to tell their citizens what they should do, but because we, as pragmatic Dutch people, have a public healthcare system to which each Dutch citizen has to contribute to.
Now the main problem is that smoking is not only unhealthy but it also makes our healthcare system absurdly expensive.
Besidez, why should I (a non-smoker) pay for someone who voluntarily is slowly physically disabling himself and / or committing very slow suicide by smoking cigarettes?
Another thing is that smokers generally don't live as long as non-smokers, so healthy people live longer and thereby contribute more to our healthcare system than smokers. Which is unfair.
If it was up to me gun rights, like smoking, should be banned from the general public. Let the professionals deal with criminals.
Originally Posted by noahmaBy choosing to be armed you automatically force everyone else to be armed also. This is what has caused the weapons race.
how in hell do you get that logic? If I choose to own a gun, I choose to own a gun, if I choose to not own a gun, I choose to not own one, no one is forcing me in any way.
Originally Posted by stycotlIt means that smoking in public areas is forbidden by law.
If people wanna smoke in their own home ( and expose their loved ones to 2nd hand smoke) that is their business. Smoking in public is forbidden in The Netherlands to protect the employers from having to end up paying the health bills of their employees.
The exact same argument could be used for gun laws in America.
From what I understand no American would trust his neighbour implicitly? So it would only be logical to arm yourself if your neighbour is packing heat.
I have very good neighbors, I trust them not only with keys to my house but on rare occasions they watch my daughter for me, and I watch their son for them.
how in hell do you get that logic? If I choose to own a gun, I choose to own a gun, if I choose to not own a gun, I choose to not own one, no one is forcing me in any way.
what exact same argument could be used? that americans are forced to have weapons? forced to smoke? that the dutch are? i'm missing your point.
My point is that guns, like smoking, is bad for your health.
Just because your health care is not like ours, where we as a nation are collectively responsible for each other's health ( at least when it comes to paying the bills) we aren't allowed to smoke in public places. Your problem is that unstable American citizens can easily buy a gun since I assume that gun sellers aren't allowed to ask their customer for their medical history.
Heck, I believe that gun sellers don't even wanna know the medical history of their customers, because it would make them partly responsible for the actions of their customers.
I guess that like the American Army they have a don't ask, don't tell mentality when it comes to selling guns because it would directly affect their income. Like drug pushers a gun seller doesn't want to be held (partly) responsible for the product he is selling, so they choose to be blind for the cons of owning a gun and argue that 3rd parties (like gun sellers) can't be held responsible for the action of an individual.
And maybe this is true, but gun sellers (including the government) sure are responsible for the gun problems in a nation.
Like I've posted before: Crime is not an individual problem, it is the problem of a society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and expose their loved ones to 2nd hand smoke) that is their business.
Smoking in public is forbidden in The Netherlands to protect the employers from having to end up paying the health bills of their employees.
The exact same argument could be used for gun laws in America.
So it would only be logical to arm yourself if your neighbour is packing heat.
The thing is that here in The Netherlands smoking is banned from the public domain.
Which is unfair.
This is what has caused the weapons race.
Like drug pushers a gun seller doesn't want to be held (partly) responsible for the product he is selling, so they choose to be blind for the cons of owning a gun and argue that 3rd parties (like gun sellers) can't be held responsible for the action of an individual.
