That too. Might be a bit nuanced for Tony to grasp, though. It's just word association with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Printable View
That too. Might be a bit nuanced for Tony to grasp, though. It's just word association with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
How smart to compare war with peaceful times.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
What about 2011 Europe vs 2011 USA? Doesn't quite float your boat, eh?
By the way, can you imagine any European being so silly as to attempt to argue that the US is a violent society using images of the Civil War? This is the equivalent of what Tony is seeking to do here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
(Oh, and Tony — I look forward to your predictably witless response of 'yes'.)
The Nuance is that more people have been murdered under the specter of restrictive gun control laws in Europe than all those killed by guns owned by private citizens in the USA. I guess I was too subtle.....Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
And once again I will point out that I reject any notion that people like you can restrict my right to defend myself, my family, my friends and my property as I see fit. My mere possession of a firearm doesn't violate anyone else right so you have nobody else has the right to restrict it.
So this discussion is over which releases you to tell other people how they can live their lives.
another fine example of google ads
http://i41.tinypic.com/6zy0k7.jpg
google must think I'm a completely different person based on my texan ip :laugh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Those photos show what can happen when guns are taken from law abiding citizens. Here in the US criminals will have guns regardless. Why should be take guns from those that legally own them and use them much more often to stop crime than to commit a crime?
As I've shown earlier in the thread, if anyone actually looks at the FBI database information the vast majority of gun related murders in the US are thugs on thugs, mostly in inner cities, and very rarely legal gun owners.
Well hopefully soon the Castle Doctrine will be a federal statute and we can work on more laws for decent citizens - Like the 20 ft rule - you guys are smart enough to figure that one out. I would hope it has changed now but I recall not two long ago I arrived at CDG airport and there were signs everywhere warning you about pick pockets and bag thieves. Walking between terminals was a hassle. I don't think we have any airports like that. I have heard now that parts of France are becoming violent with some robberies. That is a problem we have here in many areas and if people carried more and the laws were just we could really square that away soon. I hear you can walk down any street any hour in Singapore and feel safe. That is probably the way it should be worldwide. Whoa are we all fzuked up or what. Ask your Bama Boy JanVan how he likes walking around in Bell town at 2.30 am
In the Finnish civil war, both in the Red Guard dominated and in the White Guard dominated areas, guard patrols went from house to house confiscating weapons from people they considered unreliable or being on the opposite side. If you're alone against 10 or so white/red guardsmen, I'm sure there's not much you can do except a suicide even if you have a legal gun. Oh, and the White Guard and the Red Guard were both voluntary militias in the beginning, only later the White Guard became a part of the government forces.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
That proves, that it's mainly thugs that need guns to protect them. Legal gun owners would be safe even without their guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
No, Tony. In other countries you have to obey the laws of the land in which you find yourself, not those you believe should be in place. (This, of course, is predicated on the notion that the incident to which I refer actually happened, and I don't think for a moment it did.)Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
This is hardly a revelation to anyone. All countries will have in them parts where violent crime is higher than in others, and where more robberies take place. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
I don't feel the need for any citizen to possess a gun in the name of stopping crime. Never once have I felt so frightened as to consider that a gun would be of protection. And your comment justifying Tony's moronic use of those pictures to portray a Europe beset by violent crime is pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
I've said in the past that my gun ownership has nothing to do with a "need" or even "desire" to have one for self protection. The state I live in allows concealed carry and I've never felt any need to apply for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Why have one, then? To make a political point? When it comes to implements — as opposed to books, DVDs and other items I buy for my own amusement — I don't own anything I don't actually need. What's the point in that?Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
I don't own my guns for self protection either. But I had a family member that lived in a less safe area that made a home invader flee after threats to her person. I suspect she avoided bodily harm due to brandishing, not using, a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Hitler had reasoning behind what he did....Quote:
And your comment justifying Tony's moronic use of those pictures to portray a Europe beset by violent crime is pathetic.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.
From Nazi Gun Control
Today most of Europe is higher in crime in almost every aspect other than murder than the US is. That's another fact
Being that you can't address any post by Tony without attacks against his person, you obviously don't have a clear point of view on his posts IMO. I'll assume it's no longer worth commenting on.
Strange how so many of the the Americans here can point to such instances, whereas us Europeans generally can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
My point of view on his opinions is entirely clear, I would have thought. It's not my fault if you can't comprehend it.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
What is the net effect though? The situation which exists in the United States is a wider market where guns are more readily accessible. The law in effect actually enables people to have the ability to commit more crime. That's fine I suppose, if that is how you wish to define the culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Lets sum up gun ownership in two;
Educated & principled individual + gun = no problem
twat + gun = recipe for disaster
Let's take it one step further then.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Totally outlaw guns;
Educated & principled individual - gun(due to respect for the law) = unarmed and unprotected
twat + gun(due to lack of respect for the law) = still a twat more likely now to commit a crime on those unarmed and unprotected with much less fear of reprisals.
No. Twat less likely now to commit a crime because it's now much harder to acquire guns in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
well lets take it one step further I would rather have to deal with a bullet vs a furnace
Maybe it would be a good idea to make bullet ownership and selling illegal. Existing bullet's would run out faster than the existing firearms. Besides, without bullets, guns are pretty much useless. I'm sure that even the Swiss who have their military assault rifles at home don't have ammunition for those at home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
[youtube]aAoMNEQo4sQ[/youtube]Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
:D
The Swiss do, however, have to keep a bit of ammo with their assult rifles.
Thought I'd share this, perhaps to put some perspective on firearms regulations outside of the USA.
The curriculum vitae of a former neighbour of mine:
His full time occupation is a law enforcement officer for the city Sherriff’s department.
He is an on-call member of the city tactical squad.
He is also a reservist in the Canadian Armed Forces.
He manages his own shooting club.
He was a good neighbour to have around :p : .
He obviously has access to a wide array of firearms.
Having shared a few refreshments ( :uhoh: ) since I’ve known him, I thought I’d highlight a few facts about firearms regulations in Canada:
Even in his experienced capacity, the following applies:
A federal government issued firearms permit is required to transport his weapons.
He is not permitted to transport fully automatic weapons, unless when on duty with the city tactical unit. His standard-issue sidearm must be kept in a locked storage container at the Sherriff’s office facility.
The only firearms he is permitted to transport when off duty are single shot rifles, unloaded, in a lockable case, with ammunition kept separate.
Both fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons are not permitted in his shooting club. The club has these types of weapons (e.g. M-16, AK-47, etc.) but all are modified to single-shot only.
Only club members who have a firearms permit can transport their weapons (as above), otherwise they must be kept in locked storage at the club facility.
Targets at the club are circular “bulls eye” type only. Human silhouette-type targets, including photographs are not permitted.
:mark:
Ha! That was funny. But here in reality that Twat already has a gun, most likely he has it illegally now. What in the world makes you think more laws will change that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
It was not Hitler that banned guns in Germany. It was the Weimar government in 1929. Doubtful if having guns the jewish population would have fared any better than they did since they owned a tiny percentage of guns at the time they were legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
They had guns in the Warsaw ghetto:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And your chance depends on what their plans for you are. For example, in Western Europe, the Germans left most of those who weren't armed in peace, but those who took part in the armed resistance were in severe danger and likely to be tortured and killed if caught.
Perhaps God smells then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
:D
You have to remember that the Russians were the nasty ones who picked on the porr, innocent, peace loving Nazi's who were just tyring to help the Jews, Russians, Blacks etc by providing mass holiday camps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Most Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French were never in death camps,they lived their lives pretty normally. They had local pro-Nazi governments and some even voluntarily joined the German military.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
No, I just gave you an example that sometimes it's safer to not have a gun or at least to not turn it against other people. Especially when other people have the upper hand. Like Kenny Rogers would have put it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run
So you would rather live like a "good slave", than take a chance at breaking your bonds. Telling. Very, telling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
No. A completely true statement that is backed with the weight of evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Australian Government via a buy back scheme took 700,000 guns out of society.
News | The University of Sydney
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."
Gun deaths halved in past 10 years - www.theage.com.au
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
Australia which has far tighter gun control and which engaged in a mass buy back has a gun-related death rate which is 14.7 times lower per 100,000 people.
Having been down this road before, I can't actually make a convincing argument because it isn't accepted. What is accepted and apparently acceptable is 14.7 times the number of dead Americans as a result of guns per 100,000 people. What's also accepted is a health care system which has to cope with accidents and injuries up and down the land. America as a nation has found it acceptable to wear these costs through increased health insurance premiums.
I wasn't talking about me. I was talking generally. When there's no chance, some people do prefer to live instead of dying. In 5 card stud poker, would you go against three aces with king high?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
My word. I would have thought education and training in how to handle a firearm ought to rank above the individual's standpoint on the issue of gun ownership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
And with Europe having almost 50% more citizens I think that is not exactly a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Thanks for the great examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
So a larger country having a higher per capita crime rate is ok as long as it's not gun related crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I was referring to having less murders then you guys have in pistol heaven.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter