Am 05.10.2011 22:41, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 29.09.2011 16:08, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 28.09.2011 01:29, schrieb John Smith:
.410 buck (or a choice), .357/.38 ....

good obama blaster, criminal public servant controller, etc. Could
stop
'em from stealing you SW radio, golf clubs, other guns, or save your
arse when you wake up to the conspiracy and the conspirators want you
silenced!

Civil war in the US would be really terrible. (And I have doubt, that
such handguns would be the weapons of choice.)

Better would be to prevent havoc.

I think, that violence isn't the right way. People would better try to
reacquire control about all elements of the society: the communities,
politics, education, health-care, nutrition, transportation, military
and even entertainment.

In all these fields, there are people involved, that do not want their
country destroyed. But there are also 'bad guys', that like misery,
violence, sickness and dirt.

If you want nicer people, you had to clean your (personal!)
environment, remove the rubble, overpaint the graffiti, disallow drug
trafficking, rethink education, watch less tv, cook your own food,
walk, smile - but don't carry a gun around.


That last one..
"..but don't carry a gun around.."
is where you demonstrate you're not clued in.
The so-called "Wild West" was a much safer place to be than cities on
the East Coast during the same period, and that includes the wild and
wooly gold and silver mining towns in Nevada and California.
And the difference is a simple one.
On the East Coast, the people were disarmed and defenseless
In the "Wild West" people were armed, willing and able to defend
themselves.


I see. But isn't especially the USA more than well equipped with
personal, that is supposed to provide security?


AND ?


If so, why then should each individual be burden with that task, too.
In my country we usually don't carry guns around. I don't have the
feeling, this fact would lower my state of security.


I'm so sorry that your "feeling of security" is based on ignorance.
Are you claining that when it comes down to it, you are NOT responsible
for YOUR security and that of your loved ones ?
And instead are willing to be irresponsible and depend on others for it ?
If one day a criminal decides to invade your home, or attack you on the
street, - How will you respond ?
Will you do like so many Europeans did about 60 years ago ?
Obediently go along and be shipped of to camps to be disposed of ?

In the US, armed citizens shoot more than twice the criminals than the
police do
Yet at the same time, the allegedly highly trained police shoot over 6
times more innocent bystanders, than plain old citizens do. (That should
raise some flags about who is a safer to you than not).

Your "state of security" is based on ignorant presumptions and a
willigness to abrogate your responsibility to yourself, your family and
your fellow citizens.

That is blatant nonsense!
If you want less crime in your country, than it's better to solve a few
problems, than to send in troops.

Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather. It is a sign of a
degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if
they run around with arms.

The society is responsible for the security of the country. That's why
you have an army and a police. The individual should be able to trust in
these organisations.

So how could you avoid crime? Well, that's where I have started. If
people in general in a society are (in average) more healthy, happy,
employed, sober, clean and moral, you have less crimes. (or vice versa)

If you have a lot of psychopaths running around with heavy guns, than
things get dangerous.

This is why I think, the police shall provide security for the general
public. This general public in return controls the police - to keep the
policemen within the bounds of the law.

The individual person may possibly have a gun or shot on a shooting
range. But you cannot possibly believe, that citizens should carry out
their troubles with firearms.

To have an alternative to violence you need a trustful jurisdiction and
understandable and practical laws (what the U.S all don't have). This is
why I would recommend reforming the civil laws, rather than the civil
armament.


TH