Am 06.10.2011 08:52, schrieb Scout:

...
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.


I have a lot of friends from England and they all tell me the same
story. They came to Germany, because the situation in the UK is too
tough. It is a very lawless and violent society.
UK is also extremely militaristic and outruns even the USA.

How did that happen?

Well, I don't know. Maybe this is a build in feature of the English
society. Also the UK is highly influenced by masons and other societies,
with questionable objectives.

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


The destruction of the English society is something, that really worries
me. Its closer than the USA, but more severe.
Germany is different.

Greece has a lot of problems now and there are other countries with
large deficits.

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


I don't like the English way to control the people beyond every possible
means.

Actually that wasn't my point. If you think, you need a weapon to defend
yourself, than maybe thats a possible way.
I meant, that the police should provide security for the society and
carrying guns around isn't necessary.

To achieve this, crimes had to reduced (on average).

Who commits a crime? Well if you are frightened, hungry and alone, but
have arms, than this could lead to a crime.

All sorts of drugs are related to crimes, because the drugs allow an
income. That money is 'antisocial', because it feeds the criminals and
leaves wrecked bodies behind.

Greed of all sort is certainly a motivation for crimes. Sadism and
perversion is also related, as is violence.

These anti-social influences should be reduced, to allow a more peaceful
society to develop.

More unknown is, that dirt of various kind is also capable of making
people violent. So a 'clean' environment is good for the people. Its
more healthy, nicer, beautiful, if the neighbourhood isn't full of rubble.

It is really worth the afford to remove all rubble, overpaint graffiti,
fix broken windows and say 'hush hush' to the drug pushers. You can kind
of cure a neighbourhood this way, with moderate affords.

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.


Well, it depends on the arms if you end in the hospital or on the
graveyard - after a crime.

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 arms cause 'only' the wounds. But you are right and some investments
in metal health are also necessary.

TH

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 06.10.2011 08:52, schrieb Scout:

..
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.


I have a lot of friends from England and they all tell me the same story.
They came to Germany, because the situation in the UK is too tough. It is
a very lawless and violent society.

At the end of the 19th Century an Englishman could buy a gun in department
stores in London, no questions asked, not paperwork to fill
At the time, an Englishman was also expected to respond the the "Hue and
Cry" and assist in the capture of criminals.
Since then the Brits have been slowly disarmed on law at a time, to the
point that today, the National Olympic pistol team has to practice on
mainland Europe because they can NOT have the pistols in England.

And while they were slowly being disarmed and made defenseless, the crime
rate has steadily increased.

UK is also extremely militaristic and outruns even the USA.

How did that happen?

Well, I don't know. Maybe this is a build in feature of the English
society. Also the UK is highly influenced by masons and other societies,
with questionable objectives.


I'm not sure by what you mean with "the UK is extremely militaristic"
The British and a long history of military success acquired over 3+
centuries.
But British society cannot be considered "militaristic" by any sense of the
word
You may be using an incorrect term.



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


The destruction of the English society is something, that really worries
me. Its closer than the USA, but more severe.
Germany is different.


Oh please
Germany did an self-destruct in 1939-45
Before that it did another one in 1914-1918
And a few minors ones during ten intervening period.

And right now, MOST of Europe is doing a self-destruct of it's own, which
may pull Germany down with it, if the Germans don't stand up and refuse to
get dragged down by countries like Greece, Spain and the rest.
Frankly if all Germans are going around like you and patting yourselves on
the shoulder, while claiming to be "different", you haven't got a prayer in
Hell to survive this crisis..



Greece has a lot of problems now and there are other countries with large
deficits.


And if you're not careful, you will get dragged down with them...


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


I don't like the English way to control the people beyond every possible
means.


How is that different from the German way or actually the way of any of the
other countries in Europe ?


Actually that wasn't my point. If you think, you need a weapon to defend
yourself, than maybe thats a possible way.
I meant, that the police should provide security for the society and
carrying guns around isn't necessary.


Nice theory
BUT TOTAL BULL****
If you somehow imagine that you are immune from being the target of a random
criminal attack, because you just happen to be at the wrong place and time,
then you are a fool

To achieve this, crimes had to reduced (on average).


Well that's nice
But that has NOTHING to with an individual CHOOSING to be able to protect
himself, his family or even his neighbors.
It is NOT the police who are the FIRST line of defense against criminals
It's the CITIZENS
And if you're lucky, the police are not part of that criminal threat.


Who commits a crime? Well if you are frightened, hungry and alone, but
have arms, than this could lead to a crime.


Oh please !
Are you really this stump ignorant ?
What about the professional criminal ?


All sorts of drugs are related to crimes, because the drugs allow an
income. That money is 'antisocial', because it feeds the criminals and
leaves wrecked bodies behind.

Greed of all sort is certainly a motivation for crimes. Sadism and
perversion is also related, as is violence.

These anti-social influences should be reduced, to allow a more peaceful
society to develop.

More unknown is, that dirt of various kind is also capable of making
people violent. So a 'clean' environment is good for the people. Its more
healthy, nicer, beautiful, if the neighbourhood isn't full of rubble.


ROFLMAO

By that definition, the countryside where there is a LOT of dirt has got to
be the MOST CRIMINAL place of all




It is really worth the afford to remove all rubble, overpaint graffiti,
fix broken windows and say 'hush hush' to the drug pushers. You can kind
of cure a neighbourhood this way, with moderate affords.


"say "hush-hush" to the drug pushers" ?
PULEEEEEZE
Where do you get this kindergarten pap ?

I would rather shoot the drug pushers

You are caught trying to sell drugs ?
Here's a nice 9mm bullet to the back of the head
Problem solved,
The pusher is "hushed"..
PERMANENTLY..




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.


Well, it depends on the arms if you end in the hospital or on the
graveyard - after a crime.


IN the US, there are annually about 1,500,000 crimes committed using guns
ON the other hand there are about 2,500,000 DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) where
armed citizens avoid being the victims of criminals
In the US, where there are over 300 million guns in the hands of about 80
million (out of 100 million) households, there are less than 900 accidental
deaths from guns.
Also in the US, armed citizens shoot more than twice as many criminals as
the police do.
Yet at the same time you are 6 times more at risk from being
accidentally shot by the police than an armed citizen.

I'll let you do the math...

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 arms cause 'only' the wounds. But you are right and some investments
in metal health are also necessary.


Well that's nice AFTER the criminal has been apprehended and sent off to the
hospital
But what is the target of that criminal supposed to do at the MOMENT of
the crime ??
You seem to be avoiding addressing that issue.

Germany has started printing old currency in case the Euro gets
ditched.I read about that a few days ago at
http://www.rense.com

Not long ago the Australians were disarmed.Result, crime skyrocketed.
cuhulin