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.
Its a Welfare state - I don't care for welfare states
I agree that rich people who only think of themselves would not want to live in Holland; they would not like the way we tax the (super) rich.
But the Netherlands is still safer than the US, even when only the police and the army have the monopoly to use guns.
Originally Posted by GreatdayWhen citizens have to do the job of the police it means that either the law has become a joke, or that the law enforcement agencies can't do their jobs, or that crime is running the nation.
I like what you said here. In America, for a good number of people, 'freedom' means obeying only the laws that one happens to care for and when one happens to feel like it. There is a very low level of civic responsibility in America. This might be interpreted as a byproduct of the multi-ethnic history of the American population, leading to a "every fellow, or ethnicity, for himself" mindset.
'Freedom' of action is emphasized in America, but 'responsibility' to follow the law is not.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 03-25-2008 at 11:17 AM..
I like what you said here. In America, for a good number of people, 'freedom' means obeying only the laws that one happens to care for and when one happens to feel like it. There is a very low level of civic responsibility in America. This might be interpreted as a byproduct of the multi-ethnic history of the American population, leading to a "every fellow, or ethnicity, for himself" mindset.
So, your position is, that cops can be everywhere, all the time, and there is no need for an individual to take responsibility for their own safety?
You're missing the point, as usual. You've changed the subject. The subject is, what is the root cause for the phenomenon of the public's disregard for the law.
You're missing the point, as usual. You've changed the subject. The subject is, what is the root cause for the phenomenon of the public's disregard for the law.
No - I'm not changing the subject at all.
Other posters, including yourself, have indicated that there should be no need for individual ownership of firearms because its law enforcements job to protect the individual. The inference being, that it is law enforcements job to primarily protect the individual - and that the individual need not be "paranoid" (your words) about their safety.
So, is it your position, that the individual, does not have primary responsibility for their safety and that of their family?
So, is it your position, that the individual, does not have primary responsibility for their safety and that of their family?
The answer is, duh, yes. But the more important point is HOW FAR does one reasonably go to do so. Does our society expect each citizen to heavily arm him/herself to do so? Does each citizen hire his/her own security service? Etc. What is the 'reasonable' expectation of each citizen is the point. What does our society lead each citizen to EXPECT to do to secure one's own family? Simply provide a reasonable level of physical security in one's own home? Or to arm oneself with several firearms? Those are two very different responses to the situation, and with with very different sets of ramifications for the society (such as the ramification of stolen, high-powered weapons, airline pilots inadvertently shooting holes in airplanes, etc.). IMO, and this is common sense as well, the more weapons that are in the hands of citizens, the less safe are ALL the citizens.
Your simplistic answer, GET A GUN, isn't helpful to the overall situation.
"What a wise man does in the beginning only a fool does at the end." This saying means that, something that one person might do to address his/her own situation might not always be appropriate for EVERYONE in that society.
I find it funny how every single argument against gun rights is based on emotions, assumptions, and "what if" situations. We can't change laws because of emotions though. If all you're doing is trying to state all the negatives that COULD happen (They are not guaranteed to happen. In addition, studies show otherwise.), you're not really making a valid point. It has been shown numerous times that when cities in America create bans on guns, crime goes up. My stepdad is from Washington D.C., and he'll tell you all about the problems there. Murders go on all the time there, yet, they have some of the tightest gun laws in the nation.
And in case people from outside of the US don't know, police aren't required to protect you. Police have different purposes depending on where you live. Here, they aren't required to protect a single person.
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.
I agree that rich people who only think of themselves would not want to live in Holland; they would not like the way we tax the (super) rich.
When citizens have to do the job of the police it means that either the law has become a joke, or that the law enforcement agencies can't do their jobs, or that crime is running the nation.