 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stefan Viljoen" <pov### [at] polard com> wrote in message
news:4af44d5c@news.povray.org...
> A civilian might have been of more use, not subject to military discipline
> or trained to wait for orders - he'd have had to use his own judgement,
> which is often VERY badly regarded in most armies. You do what you are
> told. If you are not told to do something, you don't do it.
Well, maybe armies have some common sense after all. If firing willy-nilly
is not a good idea for an army, nor is it for civilians, who will have even
less training, experience and discipline. And if civilians are not supposed
to open fire either, what's the point of arming them?
> Or they had to wait until they could get hold of somebody with a LOADED
> weapon, ready to fire. And then that person too, if properly trained,
would
> have first made an assessment and not just blindly started firing back,
> which can cause just as much harm.
Exactly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:4af4836d$1@news.povray.org...
> This wasn't a case of someone wandering on to a base without security
> catching them. He worked there, he was probably authorized to carry a
> gun on to the base if not carry it around with him. So the first guard
> on the scene sees someone he works with firing at someone else he works
> with, and may have had no clue which one was the bad guy. And if he
> opened fire, would the next guard to come along mistake him for the bad
> guy as well?
All valid argument as well for a civilian setting where everybody/majority
carries.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/06/09 07:49, Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> Ever heard of Mark Steyn? (He's a right leaning blogger and writer in the
> US) He wrote on his blog that when he was in France once, a high-ranking
Canada.
> French Gendarmerie (Police) official approached him and boasted that in
> France "People want guns but can't get them! But they're still free! So
> there!" He merely replied "In Texas people want guns, and they CAN get
> them. Texans will ALWAYS be free."
Yes, and neither statement is worth anything. It's simply a case of
eloquence over any actual substance. Which is, after all, what most of
those writers/commentators are about.
--
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The only "safe" world is one which doesn't include guns.
We had that. We called it the feudal period of the middle ages. Guess what?
It wasn't very safe either, unless you were the one that could afford the
armor and war charger.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> If a government (or, let's rather say: society) wants to go for ethnical
> cleansing, first thing they'll do is cut down the rights of bearing arms
> /for that group of people/.
Go google "Black Panthers".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> If personal armament is there to prevent the government from going nuts,
> then that personal armament must obviously be superior to the armament
> under governmental control.
This is incorrect, as a quick look at history will show.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The only "safe" world is one which doesn't include guns.
>
> We had that. We called it the feudal period of the middle ages. Guess
> what? It wasn't very safe either, unless you were the one that could
> afford the armor and war charger.
>
It wasn't very safe for the Nobs either :P
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8-11-2009 2:16, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The only "safe" world is one which doesn't include guns.
>
> We had that. We called it the feudal period of the middle ages. Guess
> what? It wasn't very safe either, unless you were the one that could
> afford the armor and war charger.
I hope you simply mean that absence of guns does not mean absence of
weapons. As a historic statement it is not very accurate. Culturally is
is slightly narrow minded.
ATM in most western countries guns are not part of everyday live, with
the US being a notable exception. I have never seen one in real life.
The number of incidents reported per year is here below 10. More than
90% of all these incidents are inter- or intra-criminal affairs. At the
same time, I do feel very safe here. Even though your chances of being
killed in a violent incident are much higher than mine, it is still so
unlikely that even you can feel safe.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> ATM in most western countries guns are not part of everyday live, with
> the US being a notable exception. I have never seen one in real life.
> The number of incidents reported per year is here below 10. More than
> 90% of all these incidents are inter- or intra-criminal affairs. At the
> same time, I do feel very safe here. Even though your chances of being
> killed in a violent incident are much higher than mine, it is still so
> unlikely that even you can feel safe.
<troll><right-winger>"And the reason anybody *can* feel safe even
without guns is because the US military enables it! Hoo-rah! If it
weren't for Our Boys, you'd all be speaking (pick your evil imperial
language of choice: [German/Russian/Chinese/Arabic/Greek/Engl...oh
wait]) right now!"</right-winger></troll>
*cough*
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> ATM in most western countries guns are not part of everyday live, with
>> the US being a notable exception. I have never seen one in real life.
>> The number of incidents reported per year is here below 10. More than
>> 90% of all these incidents are inter- or intra-criminal affairs. At
>> the same time, I do feel very safe here. Even though your chances of
>> being killed in a violent incident are much higher than mine, it is
>> still so unlikely that even you can feel safe.
>
> <troll><right-winger>"And the reason anybody *can* feel safe even
> without guns is because the US military enables it! Hoo-rah! If it
> weren't for Our Boys, you'd all be speaking (pick your evil imperial
> language of choice: [German/Russian/Chinese/Arabic/Greek/Engl...oh
> wait]) right now!"</right-winger></troll>
>
> *cough*
>
Aye mi loon, ye dinna ha’ t’ fecht!
Sorry Andrel ;)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
