 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> When someone goes on a rampage in a civilian setting, gun nuts are quick to
> point out that had the other people had guns as well, the shooter would have
> been stopped before he could inflict any serious damage. I wonder about
> their angle now.
As a retired member of the US military, I can affirm that by military
regulation, the victims were prohibited from bearing firearms in the
place where they were killed.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> In "Wild West" times, the situation was possibly somewhat similar in the
> US. Nowadays, they appear to have a working law enforcement system,
> which should reduce the need for personal firearms. (After all, that's
> exactly their job, isn't it?)
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
> Here in Germany, we live quite safe, despite(?) private gun ownership
> being subject to severe restrictions, and being far from common.
>
> I guess the situation in the US is closer to Germany than to South
> Africa. I do concede that in a country where gun ownership restrictions
> cannot be enforced successfully, any restriction to gun ownership will
> only hurt the law-abiding. But is the US such a country?
The US situation is somewhat more complex than you will get from
watching the news. There are parts of the US that are as safe as any
part of Germany; there are parts that are as dangerous as South Africa.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/08/09 16:13, John VanSickle wrote:
> As a retired member of the US military, I can affirm that by military
> regulation, the victims were prohibited from bearing firearms in the
> place where they were killed.
And just in case people are still doubting, I read news articles
pointing out that they were not allowed to carry firearms.
--
Engineers: often wrong, seldom in doubt.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
