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.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,736,880 times
Reputation: 20050
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
I don't worry about every forseeable and unforseeable danger of every minute of every day. That seems like a very sad way to live. Do you take a gun to the bathroom with you or do you have a spare in there?
lool^^^^,, a gun makes a good beer opener..
i bet if a lot of the people on here talking big about their guns were at the theater where the colorado shooter did his dirty deed would have hit the deck like scaredy cats!!! gun or no gun
I know that I wil cop varying degrees of flack over this posting but I feel so strongly about the subject that I will just have to take what comes on the chin.
First up, I would like it known that I am a retired Aussie bloke with 25 years experience in most aspects of law enforcement including uniform patrol and supervision, criminal investigation, undercover narcotics, organised crime, police college instructor etc. I am also a military veteran having served n the Australlian Army in South East Asia during the 1960s (Yes, we were also there.). Bottom line - I know a bit about firearms and am not some 'pinko Commie' and am in fact a right-wing conservative.
What I don't get is how citizens of the USA (which I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting on several occasions) can continue to tolerate the rising numbers of firearm related deaths and injuries each year, which I think it is somewhere around 100,000 at present. Surely if these were casulaties sustained in some sort of military action, US citizens would want to know why!
And I also don't understand why your law makers haven't had a serious look at the Constitutional right of Americans to bare arms. I have only a basic understanding of the Second Ammendment to your Constitution but 2 things in this stand out to me - "militia" and "well-regulated". "Militia" I get as being an organised body of civilians as opposed to a permanent military force. And when your founding fathers drafted the Constitution, this ammendment was quite justified; not so much need for a 'militia' now days though I would think. But surely the term "well-regulated" is self-explanatory and seems today to be wide of the mark in the USA. I have read that is some US States, firearms can be purechased at gun shows without adequate background checks being carried out on the prospective buyer. That seems crazy!
Some of you may be aware that in April 1996 36 people were killed and 23 wounded in the massacre at Port Arthur here in the State of Tasmania. This horrific event was a watershed for gun ownership in Australia. Under federal government co-ordination all Australian States and Territories banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavy controls on their legal use. The governmenyt initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of AUS $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised AUS $500 million.
Perhaps it is time that some of your politicians at federal and state level showed some intestinal fortitude and had a good look at firearm ownership in the USA.
Okay, let the bullets fly!
the problem is not every law abiding citizen has a gun, it should be mendatory that they should all own a gun!
Respect people who can only feel safe when carrying a gun all of the time? No, that is just sad. I feel sorry for them.
I don't respect people who refuse to take personal responsibility for their safety or that of their families but instead abdicate that responsibility to government entities.
It is too bad that people who spout off ignorant statements like yours are unwilling to comprehend the meaning of being prepared. Instead you erroneously interpret and assign the behaviors of those willing to take personal responsibility in the face of imminent lethal force in terms of feelings such as safety and fear. When truely, one is either capable or incapable of facing a potentially immenent lethal threat and winning the encounter.
Do you feel safer because your home is insured? Do you feel safer when you buckle your seat belt? Or, do you understand that it will merely lessen your discomfort and increase your odds of survival? Same should be applied to those who accept the responsibility of carrying a weapon as a lifestyle. It is a measure of preparedness. It is one more tool in the toolbox that evens the odds of survival.
In the US it is NOT uncommon for the criminals to be carrying weapons and break into the home. Such was the case last year in Tucson, AZ. The homeowners were killed
I know that many American criminals do carry guns and are violent. And if I was living in the US I would definetly buy a gun for home defense (and for fun). What I'm trying to say is that the criminals carry guns BECAUSE of the second amendement and because many home owners are armed and willing to fight. If homeowners weren't armed then there would be no need for most criminals to even carry a gun. I agree that even if you would ban all guns some criminals (drug cartels, high ranking dealers, rapists etc.) would still get one. But burglars, thiefs, low ranking drug dealers etc. wouldn't. But the problem is that for the first couple of years after a gun ban the criminals would still have their arms but most law abiding citizens wouldn't and it would therefore result in a short-term rise in crime. Because of that I don't think that very strict gun laws would be good for the US. So I don't claim to have a solution for Americas violence problem. But I think that one of the main reasons for it is the second amendement and the easy access to guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
Having personal experience with your example - I disagree. While calling the police (911) is a good suggestion, more than likely by the time they get to the residence, the resident is either death or severly injured.
Yes this might happen in todays America and a single person can't change that because he would put himself in danger. But as I said in Western Europe 99% of burglars just want to steal stuff and have no intentions to physcally harm anybody. The burglars know that the homeowner won't try to kill them so there is no need for them to be violent or armed. This would just get them in trouble if they get caught.
Yes this might happen in todays America and a single person can't change that because he would put himself in danger. But as I said in Western Europe 99% of burglars just want to steal stuff and have no intentions to physcally harm anybody. The burglars know that the homeowner won't try to kill them so there is no need for them to be violent or armed. This would just get them in trouble if they get caught.
Burglars are not normally violent. Do you have home invasion where they kick in your front door ? How about Rapist, any of those in your country ?
That's a little more violence involved then your average burglary.
to me coddling criminals means giving them the things they would normally have to work for in real life. as i said, we have made prisons in this country a place to be.
I know what you mean and I feel the same way. To me it seems wrong to give the violent criminals and repeat offenders anything more then a cheap bed and disgusting food. But the crime statistics show that rehabilitation works better than punishment. And btw Swiss prisons truly are like 3 star hotel's... So your prisons are really uncomfortable compared to most European ones...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
i agree that putting drug users away is stupid. but then every low rank pusher becomes a "recreational" user to avoid prison by claiming that three kilos of coke is for his weekend use. at what point does a user, who in fact deals to support their habit, need to go to jail? understand that many of those users are in fact also dealers.
You just need an exact definition of "amount for personal use" for each illegal drug. i.e. the Swiss parliament decided to decriminalize marihuana soon. If somebody gets caught by the police with less than 10 grams he will only have to pay a fine and don't get a criminal record. If he carries more then 10 grams he will be viewed as a drug dealer and go to prison. Just make a definition and this problem is solved.
Burglars are not normally violent. Do you have home invasion where they kick in your front door ? How about Rapist, any of those in your country ?
That's a little more violence involved then your average burglary.
Home invasion is what I meant to say... And I have never heard of that in Switzerland. It doesn't exist because criminals prefer to be sneaky instead of loud and violent.
And yes there are rapists here as well. But a pepper spray is usually enough to scare a rapist away (maybe unless he carries a firearm, which swiss rapists don't)
I know that I wil cop varying degrees of flack over this posting but I feel so strongly about the subject that I will just have to take what comes on the chin.
First up, I would like it known that I am a retired Aussie bloke with 25 years experience in most aspects of law enforcement including uniform patrol and supervision, criminal investigation, undercover narcotics, organised crime, police college instructor etc. I am also a military veteran having served n the Australlian Army in South East Asia during the 1960s (Yes, we were also there.). Bottom line - I know a bit about firearms and am not some 'pinko Commie' and am in fact a right-wing conservative.
What I don't get is how citizens of the USA (which I have thoroughly enjoyed visiting on several occasions) can continue to tolerate the rising numbers of firearm related deaths and injuries each year, which I think it is somewhere around 100,000 at present. Surely if these were casulaties sustained in some sort of military action, US citizens would want to know why!
And I also don't understand why your law makers haven't had a serious look at the Constitutional right of Americans to bare arms. I have only a basic understanding of the Second Ammendment to your Constitution but 2 things in this stand out to me - "militia" and "well-regulated". "Militia" I get as being an organised body of civilians as opposed to a permanent military force. And when your founding fathers drafted the Constitution, this ammendment was quite justified; not so much need for a 'militia' now days though I would think. But surely the term "well-regulated" is self-explanatory and seems today to be wide of the mark in the USA. I have read that is some US States, firearms can be purechased at gun shows without adequate background checks being carried out on the prospective buyer. That seems crazy!
Some of you may be aware that in April 1996 36 people were killed and 23 wounded in the massacre at Port Arthur here in the State of Tasmania. This horrific event was a watershed for gun ownership in Australia. Under federal government co-ordination all Australian States and Territories banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavy controls on their legal use. The governmenyt initiated a "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of AUS $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised AUS $500 million.
Perhaps it is time that some of your politicians at federal and state level showed some intestinal fortitude and had a good look at firearm ownership in the USA.
Okay, let the bullets fly!
I just noticed this thread after 8 pages of mostly the usual dogma from the extremists in the gun-toting crowd. Anyway, thank you for posting it.
I don't understand either, except to tell you that we have become an irrational nation....made up of a large group of extremists on the (mostly religious) right and a large group of extremists on the radical left. Sensibility is a rarer and rarer commodity here. That's why we are a nation that can only look behind us to see our greatest days.
I just noticed this thread after 8 pages of mostly the usual dogma from the extremists in the gun-toting crowd. Anyway, thank you for posting it.
I don't understand either, except to tell you that we have become an irrational nation....made up of a large group of extremists on the (mostly religious) right and a large group of extremists on the radical left. Sensibility is a rarer and rarer commodity here. That's why we are a nation that can only look behind us to see our greatest days.
Actualy its the radicals on both sides that do the shouting. The silent majority still exists.
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.
