"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
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.

Hmmmm....meanwhile the UK has one of the highest violent crime rates among
the leading nations.

And we see how well that society worked as London burned this summer.

So clearly trying to keep people from having arms, doesn't necessarily mean
crimes won't occur.

The true measure isn't by how much people have had their arms removed, but
whether they chose not to engage in crime whether they have arms or not.

It isn't the arms that cause crime, but the will to do so. Removing arms,
doesn't alter the will. One can ALWAYS find a way if they decide crime is
what they desire.


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.

I agree they should be able to trust these organization, but that doesn't
mean they shouldn't be able to provide for themselves should this trust be
misplaced, or simply the organizations can't be everywhere 24/7/365.

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)

Actually only ONE of those criteria is really relevant. Moral. Everything
else is conditions that overcome ones morals.

So the issue is with these things, these are the causes of crime....so why
are you wasting time trying to control one means of instrumentality rather
than deal with the causes?



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

Hate to tell you this, but if you have a lot a psychopaths running around
things are going to get dangerous whether guns are legal or not.

See, they can always gets guns illegally, or they may simply turn to another
means, such as bombs, traps, poison, and so on.

The whys that one can commit a violent crime is limited only by one's
imagination....not whether they can legally buy a gun.


This is why I think, the police shall provide security for the general
public.

They try to do so, however, since their concern is for the general public,
that means that individuals are often, well, on their own.

This general public in return controls the police - to keep the policemen
within the bounds of the law.

And yet regularly we find policemen who are outside 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.

Yep, but if they are going to do so, whether they legally have guns, or not
isn't going to significantly alter their ability to carry out their troubles
on others, Either with an illegal firearms, or simply some other means.

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

Neither does the UK.

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

Sorry, but civil law isn't the issue. Every crime is already illegal.
Reforming the laws isn't going to change this. Until you can eliminate the
causes of crime, why should one provide for their own defense just in cause
the military or police fail to do so when needed as needed? If people are
armed when there is no crime, then who cares? As long as they aren't
engaging in crime, then what difference does it make if they chose to be
armed or not?

In short, I think you're spending too much time on the instrumentality and
trying to control it, and no enough realizing that people will break the law
when they chose to do so. Address why they chose to do so, and you can
eliminate most crime. However you can never eliminate all crime because some
people chose to commit crime only because they want to, and no other reason.
"They just want to watch the world burn. " Because it gives them something
that they simply can't have in any legal society.