Am 07.10.2011 00:07, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas 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.

(maybe I have to stick to my position. But I would agree with you somehow.)

But think about drugs, for example.

A drug is a substance, that people like to take, because it makes them a
bit relaxed, woozy or alike.

Usually the criminals don't want to make people woozy, but intend to get
money from them. To avoid drug related crimes, one should try to make it
harder, to gain something from selling drugs.

This could be done, if the drug itself is not the subject of prosecution
or the addictive person, but drug trafficking and trade.

The addictive person had to be cured, where possible and less people
should start new drug experiences. Than those, that remain addictive
could be provided with the drugs in a kind of medical situation for free.

This would stop the market and leave no way to profit from addiction.

A more happy and healthy society is not so easily keen on taking drugs,
because they have nicer things in mind than getting a kick.

So make people happier and healthier. Drugs only pretend to do that, but
- in fact - don't, but create a mental and personal disaster.

This all is reason for immense costs, the general public has to cover.
There are policemen to be paid and prisons, lawyers and hospitals. All
this is expensive and has no greater good than a few woozy heads.


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.

Actually I like to shoot myself, but have only an air-pistol. German
laws are a bit strict and you can't easily get a gun. So I could think
about the problem only from the theoretical point of view.

I think, the best way is to reduce violence in general. Criminals like
to create places of their own taste. These place they like to decorate
with graffiti and rubble (my impression), what scares usual citizens away.

To scare the criminals away, it is in my eyes useful, to spot such
places and clean them.
I mean real physical cleaning! That allows usual people to go there
again and this reduces the territory for the 'bad guys'.

This scheme is also in some way applicable on certain districts, where
people live. The removed rubble attracts less criminal minds, what can
'cure' such areas.

If people carry a gun, than this would require a spotless reputation and
enough training, to know about the risks. That also would require proper
registration and occasional control of firearms. Actually I think, it is
very dangerous, to have a gun with you outside the home. I think, the
risk is higher than the benefit, but I can't tell.


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.

No, I'm no policemen and (German) military we didn't have in West-Berlin.

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.

Well, agreed.
Actually this is the usenet and I type my ideas into such a forum
(alt.conspiracy btw). But occasionally I find different subjects
interesting. And then these post are crossposted to other forums, where
people participating having the impression of somebody without proper
knowledge.
To some extend this is true, but maybe you find ,what I have written,
interesting enough to think about it.

TH