Author Topic: Rate has doubled? (Read 5169 times)

Masherbrum · « **Reply #60 on:** January 25, 2006, 06:51:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Harry
Why do you like guns?

I love shooting my gun, wait, yer talking about my USP 45 ain't ya?

Aside from that fact, I CHOSE to, because of the US Constitution allowing me to MAKE THAT CHOICE.
Karaya

Harry · « **Reply #61 on:** January 25, 2006, 07:08:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Masherbrum
I love shooting my gun, wait, yer talking about my USP 45 ain't ya?

Aside from that fact, I CHOSE to, because of the US Constitution allowing me to MAKE THAT CHOICE.
Karaya

Also a good answer. (Got to love the USP)

wrag · « **Reply #62 on:** January 25, 2006, 08:02:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
No lazs.. I'm nowhere near as likely to be assaulted lifethreateningly as I am in danger while driving 50 000km a year. And a seatbelt is an easy and free lifepolicy which helps the most in low speed collisions like on urban areas. I feel uneasy if I leave the belt off and it's a complete automation to put it on even for 10 yards distances.

I could carry a gun all day long, but it would be more likely that I'd accidentally shoot myself in the leg or one of my kids would play with it than having to use it for self defense. When you pull a gun you must be ready to shoot to kill, too. The other party might be armed too and shoot in self defense. Perfect example of a simple pickpocketing escalating into use of deadly force. It is however way more likely that the other party is not carrying if such a situation should arise.

Which it won't. I've had 2 car crashes so far but never have I faced a situation where I needed or even wished I had a gun with me.

You just can't understand that in our society people do not feel so unsecure that they have to arm themselves for whatever imaginable threats.

Hmmm...... Your very last statement says more then perhaps you realize.

Americans don't see it that way. At one time the government was NOT expected to protect you. The courts here still recognise that. The statement has been made by ht ecourts that the police are NOT required by law to protect you.

BTW I have a question. There is something I do not understand. How exactly is it possible that the people accept the current situation?

You can NOT defend your home or your property? If you do it seems you go to jail as if your some common criminal.

Your home and your possesions are material things I grant that. Yet these things represent probably years of your life spent creating/aquiring and your government basicaly spits on those years and the effort and tells you so??? It's as if your government is telling you nothing you have done, or can do means anything. It has NO value. Your home is open to pretty much any and all that wish to invade and you BETTER run away if the decide your home is next?

Further the criminals life appears to have a greater value then the lives of others? The criminals seem to spend far less time in jail then that Martin guy.

Perhaps somehoe somewhere within this I have misunderstood something. So I ask these questions. Please, someone living within the UK, answer them.

JTs · « **Reply #63 on:** January 25, 2006, 08:38:11 PM »

Record levels of gun crime are being blamed on the fact that more people than ever are carrying firearms as fashion accessories.

i have a hard time just matching shoes with purse.

wrag · « **Reply #64 on:** January 26, 2006, 02:11:45 AM »

Whoa!!!!!!!!!!

Thinkin the crime rate in this country may start to drop?????

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4645228.stm

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #65 on:** January 26, 2006, 02:31:21 AM »

Wrag: It is allowed to protect your proprety by force, just not by deadly force.

For example if someone would break in my car, I have a right to use necessary force to detain the perp. It means that I can bang him in the head with a flashlight if he resists citizens arrest.

But if I pull a gun on him (and he's not armed himself) I will be taken to court most likely for violation of firearms legislation. The argument is that material things are not just cause to threaten someones life, even if he's a perp.

Now this is one of the things I hate in our country. The lawmakers give way too many priviledges to criminals. Just couple weeks ago a cop was taken to court for shooting and wounding a store robber. He tried to run over the cop with his getaway car. That is seriously messed up IMO even if it will never pass in court.

As a sidenote, in Italy people really need that kind of a thing - they not only have the mafia to worry about but a rampant thievery problem.

An italian friend of mine said many times that a good place to test your car alarm is to take it to italy. If it's top of the line it will take 5 minutes for the car to disappear instead of 3.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #66 on:** January 26, 2006, 03:07:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Wrag: It is allowed to protect your proprety by force, just not by deadly force.

For example if someone would break in my car, I have a right to use necessary force to detain the perp. It means that I can bang him in the head with a flashlight if he resists citizens arrest.

That's why you should always have handy a clean, unregistered throwdown and some rubber gloves. So you can place the gun in his dead hand and claim he was armed.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #67 on:** January 26, 2006, 07:07:40 AM »

Umm.. I prefer to cash in from car insurance instead of killing someone over my car.

But thanks for the suggestion.

lazs2 · « **Reply #68 on:** January 26, 2006, 08:47:26 AM »

ripley... the chances of you getting seriously assaulted are about 500-800 per 100k... the chances of getting into a car wreck where the seatbelt would save you from serious injury are much less.

I don't ask you to wear or not wear a seatbelt... I also don't ask you to carry or not carry a gun.

Unlike you... I believe that both of those things are your choice and that I have no right to tell you what to do about either one. I do not believe that I can tell you what to do.

I also belive that you have no right to tell your countrymen what to do ion either case.

lazs

mydavis · « **Reply #69 on:** January 26, 2006, 11:49:00 AM »

Harry
I’m grateful your forefathers, in the course of defending themselves, happened to help my forefathers as well. To bad their sons and grandsons turned out to be so similar to what they fought against.

Our forefathers were not defending themselves when they decided to come over to Eurupe and fight World War I, We were at no risk at all, and additionally decided to declare war on germany in WWII, we could have beaten Japan a lot quicker and with less loss of american life, if we were not fighting a war in europe at the same time. Your flippant remark and the elitist and arrogant attitudes about the Americans right to bear arms is what (IMHO) really irks americans (US) .
This attitude is rampant throughout the Europe,
I spent 6 years as a heavy weapons programmer for the US navy, and when we traveled to Europe to share our technology and training with our Allies the Europeans always acted like they were doing the US a favor. (and snubbed us every chance they got )

You avoid the fact that americans familiarity with weapons and defending ourselves is what allowed americans to beat your invader Twice !!

You also avoid the facts that the average citizen is defenseless and as a result all other crimes are rampant, and just pick the facts that fit your attitudes instead of facing the truth.

mydavis · « **Reply #70 on:** January 26, 2006, 12:19:43 PM »

When Ireland was invaded by the British there was no such thing as a handgun. Spears and swords were the weapons of the day, and the Irish had plenty of weapons themselves so your point is mute. In 1922 the many different Irish counties held a referendum on whether to leave the United Kingdom and form an independent Irish state. What now is the sovereign state of Ireland elected to leave. What now is known as Northern Ireland elected to stay British. End of history lesson.

When Ireland was invaded by britain, the Irish serfs did not have Swords, or spears, many times they fought the british with axes, pitchforks and hunting implements. They also were not trained in combat as the british were, not did they have the consolidated central goverment which is the key factor in protecting ones homeland. So the british were able to seperate the irish fuedal lords loyalaty and fight them individualy and pit them against one another.
Even when the irish were able to arm themselves they were not trained in thier use and cooperative combat tactics. These were farmers not soldiers. And these farmers were trying to overthrow the fuedal lords at the same time.

The point is not mute, it is a classic example of the inability of the common man to determine his own destiny because he has given up his duty and his right to defend himself and his homeland to the very goverments whos power needs to be kept in check by the citizens that are governed.
(and as always its for thier own good)

however we can pick other examples. lets try
the invasion of France by the Nazis, the invasion of india by the british, the invasion of Indo-china by Japan. etc, etc.
Everyone has seen the footage of German armies marching through France while the entire population is standing at the sides of the streets unable to do anything.

Now imagine a foriegn army marching through any street in the US while the armed population was still alive.
now lets compare the landing of germans and japanese on american shores during WWII, and the citizens who were armed responded and protected thier homeland.

or we can pick the reluntance of Hitler to invade the Swiss, because of every citizens having a gun.

straffo · « **Reply #71 on:** January 26, 2006, 12:52:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mydavis
Now imagine a foriegn army marching through any street in the US while the armed population was still alive.
now lets compare the landing of germans and japanese on american shores during WWII, and the citizens who were armed responded and protected thier homeland.

We will see dead US citizen and a lot.

it's not any more 1776.

Quote

or we can pick the reluntance of Hitler to invade the Swiss, because of every citizens having a gun. [/B]

I guess the lack of stragegic target and the mountain played no role ?

Harry · « **Reply #72 on:** January 26, 2006, 02:49:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mydavis
Our forefathers were not defending themselves when they decided to come over to Eurupe and fight World War I …

Oh WWI? My country wasn’t involved in that one so I withdraw my expressed gratitude to your forefathers.

Quote

Originally posted by mydavis
We were at no risk at all, and additionally decided to declare war on germany in WWII, we could have beaten Japan a lot quicker and with less loss of american life, if we were not fighting a war in europe at the same time.

Well I’m sure that’s how you learned history. However in the real world Germany declared war on you first and attacked you after the Japanese attack on PH. The USA was forced into WWII after the rest of the world had been fighting the Axis for more than two years.

Quote

Originally posted by mydavis
Your flippant remark and the elitist and arrogant attitudes about the Americans right to bear arms is what (IMHO) really irks americans (US) .
This attitude is rampant throughout the Europe,

LOL you’re seeing things. When did I make any remark whatsoever about American’s right to bear arms? Why would I? I sometimes bear arms.

Quote

Originally posted by mydavis
You avoid the fact that americans familiarity with weapons and defending ourselves is what allowed americans to beat your invader Twice !!

Funny, you seem to think I live someplace I’m not. Germany invaded my country in WWII, but no American soldier set foot on our soil and certainly never “liberated” my country. My country owe the Soviets a lot more than America.

Btw. If you think an armed populous can successfully defend against an invasion you’ve seen Red Dawn one too many times. WOLVERINES!!!

Quote

Originally posted by mydavis
You also avoid the facts that the average citizen is defenseless and as a result all other crimes are rampant, and just pick the facts that fit your attitudes instead of facing the truth.

How do you figure? In my country there are more firearms in private ownership per household than in America. The armed forces sponsor gun clubs to maintain the populous’ firearms skills. Crime is negligible here, but strangely enough (by your logic) we don’t use guns to defend ourselves from criminals.

If we seem “superior” or “elitist” to you, perhaps we actually are a superior and more developed society. I’ll never have to face the prospect of having to gun down a fellow citizen over a piece of property. I live in my country’s 7th largest city, but my house is unlocked, as are my two cars parked out front. Some people even leave the keys in the ignition. Any violent crime is national front page news here. In America it’s a daily statistic.

Momus-- · « **Reply #73 on:** January 26, 2006, 02:58:50 PM »

texace · « **Reply #74 on:** January 26, 2006, 03:14:50 PM »

We are no better than Europeans...

...but Europeans are no better than us.

We may not be perfect, but no country is.