Thomas Heger wrote in news:9f4n06F18qU1
@mid.individual.net:

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.

I thought this conversation was about self defence of family, etc.. That
is not a call for troops.

Crimes are usually not unavoidable like bad weather.

Some crimes are. One can do a lot to avoid crimes like not getting
involved with gangs or drugs, but some trouble comes seeking you, not the
other way around.

It is a sign of a
degenerated society, that people believe, they could only survive, if
they run around with arms.

YOu have no idea what a degenerated society is so I wouldn't go around
spouting about one. People in the US do not believe that they can only
survive if they run around armed. In fact, only a small percentage of
honest citizens do. I am one of them. I don't expect my gun to do
anything to lower crime in my country. I only expect it to be available
if and when I may need it.

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.

Yes, but they aren't always there......I doubt very much you are in among
police and military in your country either.

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)

True.......and that is about 98 or 99% of the country.

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

There are a few.....mostly in gangs..

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.

They do......but they also don't have the onus of providing personal
security for every individual. That is also true your country.

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.

Big difference between carrying out your troubles with a firearm and
having just in case you run into one of those trying to carry out his
troubles with a gun or a bomb.

To have an alternative to violence you need a trustful jurisdiction and
understandable and practical laws (what the U.S all don't have).

Based on your posting, you have very little idea of what US laws cover
and what laws we have or don't have.

This is
why I would recommend reforming the civil laws, rather than the civil
armament.

Anbd this is why most won't listen to you. You try to address problems,
you obviously, don't understand.



--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....