It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do Europeans, Australians, and Canadians Need Freedom of Speech?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SKinLaB

I found myself starting to get upset a little bit over the past weeks about all of the negativity towards the U.S. BUT, instead of complaining about it i sucked it up and read a lot of the back and forth arguments that have been going on. I come to realize that it is posts like this that makes me understand why a lot of other Countries cannot tolerate some Americans attitudes. Its posts like this that make me ashamed that someone like you spews stuff out like this that represent this Country. I do not see the necessity for this. You are not helping our case bro. You are basically confirming why they look at us like ignorant arrogant pricks. Thanks man....

You are on your own....


Thank you for this. It is people like you that make me proud to be your neighbour to the north.

It is indeed time to stop the hate from every side and just learn from each other. We are all on this planet just trying to get by.





posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SKinLaB
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You are not helping our case bro. You are basically confirming why they look at us like ignorant arrogant pricks. Thanks man....

You are on your own....


You friend however are not on your own, most intelligent people with more than 2 brain cells to rub together, realise that there is good and bad in every society, so I will never tar another american with another ones brush.

Have a very merry Christmas pal.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Somehumanbeing
 


How in the world would crimes with hand guns, or any firearms increase because regular citizens would be able to bear them?...

Criminals for the most part do not buy their weapons legally, which is something you don't seem to understand.

Criminals have criminal connections to the black market which is how the mayority of criminals get their weapons.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by sittingonthefence
 


The founding of the U.S. was based on freedom, but you see, unfortunately back in those days the native people were seen as savages. Also unfortunately back then black people were not seen as humans, it was the mentality of the time, same thing in Europe. Foe these reasons neither native people nor black people were seen as humans.

You and I know differently, and we know, well i hope you know people of any color are people/humans, but that was not the mentality of that time.
edit on 19-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SKinLaB
...
Its posts like this that make me ashamed that someone like you spews stuff out like this that represent this Country. I do not see the necessity for this. You are not helping our case bro. You are basically confirming why they look at us like ignorant arrogant pricks. Thanks man....

You are on your own....


Did you even bother to read my entire thread?... It isn't that long... and yes there is a need to show people that those who are in power will not stop only at taking away our right to bear arms. Sooner or later they will ban the right to free speech, heck I even gave a link, which member prof.emeritus gave in another thread, that shows the chief of police in London is mulling over banning the right to peacefully protest in London...

I even wrote that I was being sarcastic, and didn't really mean what I wrote, but that in the same way that the left is making claims on the reasons why firearms should be banned, you can use the same reasons for banning freedom of speech, or the right to peacefully protest, and a whole miriad of other rights...

BTW, those people that see Americans "like ignorant, arrogant, pricks" are only looking in their mirror and describing themselves.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Oh look, I have inspired another thread.

I am assuming that you’re talking about my “rip up the second amendment thread”. you should know that that particular thread is only my own personal opinion and is in no way a accurate representation of all non-Americans.

If you had read a bit more of the thread you would also know that I believe that it is justifiable to restrict mans natural rights. I don’t have a problem with our freedom of speech being restricted, indeed if you had read a little further into that thread you would have found a link to my other thread about freedom of speech and how I think it is a lie and further to this think it is a good thing to legislate freedom of speech. The same really applies to freedom of the press, there are some things that are not in the public interest or adversely affect national security and as such should not be reported. Same goes for market freedom, I am a socialist so don’t really have a problem with getting rid of that one.

So if your question is along the lines of “if you take our second amendment, you have to give up your right to freedom of speech”, based directly on my thread. Then the answer would have to be yes, yes i would because I think absolute freedom feeds moral corruption within society and also because I think its already happening, as it should.

Again i have to stress this is only my opinion, it does not represent anyone else.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Everyone but Canadians deserve free speech. I don't believe Canadians deserve any rights.. I also find faults in allowing them to be a country at all ..


But Brits, Ausies and Kiwis deserve free speech! It's a God given right! (God hates Canada)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 




If you had read a bit more of the thread you would also know that I believe that it is justifiable to restrict mans natural rights


Silly little man.. if you can restrict a Natural Right then it's not natural, it's a gifted leniency of a Governing Authority that can be altered, changed or removed at the whim of the political elite.


That's some totalitarian tendency your showing.. histories villains would be proud.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by tribewilder

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Haven't people like you learned by now that banning firearms increase crimes, and even crimes with firearms increase because only criminals have guns when they are banned?...


Could you please show me where you get this information from? I do believe that you are quite mistaken in this.

thanks...


Where am i getting this info?... From Europe, and from the United States...

You haven't heard that for example in the UK crimes, and even crimes with hand guns have increased since the gun ban?...


Police’s Specialist Black Gun Crime Unit Faces Disbandment as Shootings Continue
Tue, 23/11/2010 - 16:37 | BNP News
...
The Yard figures showed that shooting incidents in London during 2009 were nearly double that of the previous year, statistics which led the far left extremist Guardian newspaper to admit that “gun crime in some areas is out of control.”

There was a 17 percent rise in overall firearms offences and the number of shootings almost doubled from 123 to 236 in the last six months of 2009, compared with the same period the previous year, a rise of 91.8 percent.

Serious firearms offences have risen by 47 percent across the capital. According to Metropolitan police chief, Sir Paul Stephenson, those discharging the firearms and those being shot at are young teenagers involved in "respect shootings" to settle petty disputes with little thought of the consequences.

The Guardian went on to admit that the number of incidents reported is only a fraction of what is taking place.

"Gun crime has never gone away," the paper quoted the Rev Les Isaac from south London, as saying. "Firearms are being discharged more or less on a daily basis in some parts of London."

He added: "Those using the guns have got younger. These children are unpredictable, they have access to guns and they are willing to use them."
...

www.bnp.org.uk...

You want to see some statistics on violence in Europe, Canada, South Africa, and the U.S.?..


The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the worlds most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the partys election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.


The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Crimes with hand guns have INCREASED in the UK since the handgun ban, and in general crime has gone UP...

Even CANADA has more than double the amount of VIOLENT CRIMES than the U.S...

BTW, you didn't know that crime in the U.S. is higher where guns are either banned, or heavily regulated?... such as New York, California, Illinois, etc, etc?...

In states like Montana, and Wyoming, where gun laws are more lax for example there is less crime. Heck I used to live in Wyoming, and up there citizens can even carry firearms in the open, yet there are less crimes, and even crimes with firearms, there than in most of the U.S...



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Funny in the Netherlands overall crime rates dropped significant.

Your comparison of New York and Wyoming really misses the target here. As New York is a llot more crowded and thus hav a larger pocket of people living on the edge of poverty along with a big social cutural variaty what will definitely cause conflict as well

England has a huge population of immigrants that causes problems. England has also a large poverty problem.
This has nothing to do with guns actually but everything to do with current crime rates.

Still remains that Canada or England can double their crime rate and they do not even come close to the numbers of some US cities.

Whatever you will come up with does not change the fact that innocent people die by a gun because they do not use and treat them wisely. Accidents are no exception. Even criminal will more likely carry a gun when they expect people to be armed and by doing so creating a ever increasing volatile situation.

I really don't care what you guys in the states have with guns and why. It's your business and it is not my place to meddle with.

However....

When you ( example ) come here and carry a gun I'll expect that they take it from you. That simple.

I do think it's awesome to fire a gun though on a shooting range. But with the amount of lunatics around I really prefer that guns are not an easily obtained option. Of course you can get a gun anyway. But every single life that is saved because of the illegalization of guns makes it worth it IMHO



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
...
If you had read a bit more of the thread you would also know that I believe that it is justifiable to restrict mans natural rights.


Sir... You seem to be a really troubled, ignorant, and confused individual... I normally don't do this but I am actually thinking on calling the police in Scotland, or in the UK to go search your home... You are the sort of person who could actually be a real criminal/murderer and might have someone in your home/apartment who is not there on their own free will... and you are even a nurse...

You sir need to see a psychiatrist...



Originally posted by kevinunknown
I don’t have a problem with our freedom of speech being restricted, indeed if you had read a little further into that thread you would have found a link to my other thread about freedom of speech and how I think it is a lie and further to this think it is a good thing to legislate freedom of speech.


Freedom of speech is not a right to yell fire in a crowded building where there is no fire. There have been for a very long time laws that do not allow people to say things that could put others in danger, as well as laws against slander, etc. However that does not give the right to the government, or someone like you to want to restrict Freedom of Speech any more...



Originally posted by kevinunknown
The same really applies to freedom of the press, there are some things that are not in the public interest or adversely affect national security and as such should not be reported.


In the past this used to be true, but now even regular people are seen by some as "possible terrorists" for wanting for example to defend the Second Amendment, or for not liking the policies of Obama, or not liking a One World Government... This is something Janet Napolitano has written about. You two seem to have a lot in common. She is obviouly a communist since she even wrote in her "rightwing extremism" document that anyone who fears communism is a "rightwing extremist" and possible terrorist... All of these things she wrote about go against the Law of the Land in the U.S., thats the U.S. Contitution, but of course this is something she and you both neither like, nor want... Maybe we should send you both for a visit, with a few friends over to Burma, another "socialist paradise"...


Originally posted by kevinunknown
Same goes for market freedom, I am a socialist so don’t really have a problem with getting rid of that one.


Ah... therein lies the problem... I have lived and experienced your "utopia of socialism/communism".... Thanks but no thanks...



Originally posted by kevinunknown
So if your question is along the lines of “if you take our second amendment, you have to give up your right to freedom of speech”, based directly on my thread. Then the answer would have to be yes, yes i would because I think absolute freedom feeds moral corruption within society and also because I think its already happening, as it should.


Sir, you have no idea of what you are talking about.. Take as an example the country where i was born, Cuba, in that country all your wet dreams about socialism/communism exist, yet even with all the human right infrigements, and the total socialist dictatorship that exists trying to control people there are more crimes in Cuba, apart from the corruption in the government, and also the corruption in police departments, than there are crimes anywhere in the U.S... And please do not try to sell me the lies you are told by the socialist/communist dictatorship about crime in Cuba, I still have two sisters and other family members living there, and not because they want to...

You sir are ignorant and confused sorry to say. You are confusing freedom with chaos and anarchism. The fact that the words "chaos" and "anarchism" exist to define what you call "absolute freedom" should tell you that they are very different from freedom...

With freedom comes responsibility, and freedom is in no way, or form anywhere close to chaos, or anarchy...


Originally posted by kevinunknown
Again i have to stress this is only my opinion, it does not represent anyone else.


And my opinion is that you really need to study history a bit more closely, and you really need to see a psychiatrist.
edit on 19-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Have you ever even lived for a few years in an area of Europe or Australia? I'm not talking about a petty tourist trip, i'm talking about actually settling down somewhere for a while paying rent and such? Have you? I think you are basing your idea that guns should be widespread and legal on a naive perception that more guns = less crime.

I am aware that criminals acquire weaponry in an illegal manner, I don't think YOU understand though, that if weapons are legally acquired more easily, the quantity of criminals carrying weapons will increase as most won't have to turn to illegally acquired weapons.

Here in Australia it is legal to own rifles like the Mosin-Nagant and similar. Now let's say concealed carry pistols were legal. Do you really think that will decrease crime? It will increase death rates due to civilians thinking they are the # and trying to play hero, getting everyone killed in a situation that could have been defused merely by abiding by the assailants demands. Weapons + Untrained Civilians = not a good result.

And don't give me that "they can go to the range" crap, that is just that, target practice. If you # up in the slightest with a pistol, you can get people killed that shouldn't have been. Civilians are not mature enough to own concealable carry weaponry.

You want an M4A1 in your house? That's fine. Having that there is good insurance in the case that your government oppresses you. But owning a semi-automatic pistol is a different story. I am completely ignoring the possibility that a gun-crazed lunatic will carry his M4A1 to the roof-top of some building and pop some civies.

Weapons. Guns. They are instruments of death. They are not tools for self-defense. Their purpose is to kill. Using it as self-defense will get you killed. If someone wants to hurt you with a weapon, you don't think they will try and take your ability to use it away from you? The best thing you can do as a civilian in an armed robbery is give the #er what he wants, trying to play war-hero will only get you in #.
edit on 19-12-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


You sir obviously love to ignore facts... i actually showed that even in the Netherlands there are MORE violent crimes than in the U.S... This information comes from Europe, yet you, and you are not alone, want to claim the contrary?...

Has Europe become the place where people love to ignore facts?... i have seen several Europeans claim something completely different from what reliable sources from your countries actually say...

Has European education become that bad in the past 21 years? I lived in Europe and went to school there for 9 years and education used to be a lot better than what I am seeing many Europeans post about in this forum these days.


edit on 19-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: add comments



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


It seems to me you can't take criticism very well.

Anyway...

Education has indeed become a ghost of what it used be. Luckily I didn't really experienced that downfall myself.

Again you make a pointless comparison by my capability to repeat what I've read link to our educational system.
While it is only a system that does not make one intelligent. It only provides the possibility to develop it..

What do you think ? That I make up what I say just to annoy you or something. Don't worry I wouldn't. I don't see the point.

I suggest you get yourself together and maybe if you still feel like it, you could ask me how and where I got my info. You know how to respond to a post civil and respectful do you ? I think you do.

Maybe I will even take some time to dig for some stats and figures for you. It's up to you.
edit on 12/19/2010 by Sinter Klaas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing

Have you ever even lived for a few years in an area of Europe or Australia? I'm not talking about a petty tourist trip, i'm talking about actually settling down somewhere for a while paying rent and such? Have you?


I lived for 9 years mostly in Spain and in Portugal... I have seen crime in Europe, and several times was almost a victim of crime in Spain. I say almost because I was trained to respond quickly, and most times I just ran, or threw coins at the faces of the would be robbers and ran. My father also had a few encounters with criminals in Spain, at night and in the morning as well, but I was never mugged in Portugal although I went there only with schoolmates and a couple of professors.

I remember very well the drug addicts shooting themselves up freely in the streets and at the view of everyone as my parents would take me to the movies once in a blue moon, and saw the same thing as I grew up and went out on my own. Every time i went out I would even find empty needles that drug addicts had used and threw in the sidewalk.

One of the most horrible crimes I would never forget happened not too far away from where i lived, a little girl was stabbed in the heart with a stake by a teenager because the little girl only had a few coins.. The little girl was going to buy candy when she was mugged and killed by a teenager girl who was most probably a drug addict, and before you claim "but that drug addict could have bought a legal gun in the U.S.", she couldn't have, first of she was still a minor, second of all a background check in the U.S. would have shown that teenager girl was a criminal who had a record...

Very few gun crimes are committed with legal firearms in the U.S., in fact legal firearms STOP crimes in the U.S...



Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
I think you are basing your idea that guns should be widespread and legal on a naive perception that more guns = less crime.


I am not the naive one... but you certainly seem to be. I presented links showing proof in favor of my argument and all you have done is show nothing as proof for your claims except to call me naive...


BTW, yes citizens having their right to bear arms unrestricted does equal to less crime, and sorry to tell you that the UK crime problem shows this. EVER since handguns were banned in the UK there have been MORE crimes and even MORE crimes with handguns...



Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
I am aware that criminals acquire weaponry in an illegal manner, I don't think YOU understand though, that if weapons are legally acquired more easily, the quantity of criminals carrying weapons will increase as most won't have to turn to illegally acquired weapons.


Oh boy, it is obvious that YOU don't understand.... For the most part, and it is a law in the U.S. anyone who buys firearms in a legal establishment goes through a background check... That first... Second, and another interesting fact, did you know that back in the 1900s when there were NO restritions in any firearms in the UK crimes used to be 2 crimes per 100,000 people?.... Same thing in the U.S... If you are going to claim "oh but that was in the past" then why is it that there are less violent crimes in the U.S. than in most, if not all European countries?...


Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
Here in Australia it is legal to own rifles like the Mosin-Nagant and similar. Now let's say concealed carry pistols were legal. Do you really think that will decrease crime? It will increase death rates due to civilians thinking they are the # and trying to play hero, getting everyone killed in a situation that could have been defused merely by abiding by the assailants demands. Weapons + Untrained Civilians = not a good result.


Thats the dumbest excuse I have ever read... People who have firearms have to learn how to use them... For centuries people taught their children, without any government intervention, how to use a rifle and also handguns and "there weren't any massive deaths of children from firearms"...unless they were in a war...


Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
And don't give me that "they can go to the range" crap, that is just that, target practice. If you # up in the slightest with a pistol, you can get people killed that shouldn't have been. Civilians are not mature enough to own concealable carry weaponry.


You should be the one not giving us any crap about "oh but duh, everyone should know how to use a firearm, duh, haha...duh..."

BTW, there are plenty of Americans with concealed weapons, they need a concealed permit in most states, and they are not killing and murdering people in the streets...



Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
You want an M4A1 in your house? That's fine. Having that there is good insurance in the case that your government oppresses you. But owning a semi-automatic pistol is a different story.


....So people can't # up with an M4A1 just as well as with a pistol?....

BTW, it is obvious by now that you don't know anything about firearms, first of all, an M4A1 is a fully automatic weapon which you can't even buy anymore in the U.S. unless you have some very special, and extremely difficult to get license. For the most part ONLY soldiers and police officers/Federal government agents have this type of weapon...

Second, you seem to be confusing semi-automatic with fully automatic weapon, most U.S. citizens only have semi-automatics, semi-automatic means you can only shoot one round per finger pull, a fully-automatic weapon can fire continuously and it's clip can be completely emptied in one finger pull, unless the weapon jamps or the person lifts his/her finger from the trigger.

An "assault weapon" is a shoulder fired weapon such as the AR15 which only fires one round per finger pull. Luckily the Clinton Assault Weapon ban ended in 2004, but unfortunately for our Armed Forces that same idiot of Bill Clinton signed another law banning our Armed Forces from having weapons while in military bases. If that ban didn't exist that crazy jihadist wouldn't have been able to kill so many of our soldiers at the Fort Hood Army Base... Same thing with the so called "gun free zones"...



Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
I am completely ignoring the possibility that a gun-crazed lunatic will carry his M4A1 to the roof-top of some building and pop some civies.


If you ever hear of some criminal using a fully automatic weapon, they either bought it before 1986, or they got it from the black market...



Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
Weapons. Guns. They are instruments of death. They are not tools for self-defense. Their purpose is to kill. Using it as self-defense will get you killed.


Tell that to the women, children, disabled and elderly people who have saved themselves by using a firearm... Tell that to the people who have gained their freedom by the use of firearms...
Tell that to the husbands, fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, or other family members who saved their loved ones from criminals by using a weapon...

More people are saved by handguns in the hands of good civilians than crimes are committed with legal firearms...

The problem is that the U.S. media loves to show mostly crimes with firearm but they almost never show when law abiding citizens stop crimes, except maybe Fox News.. You won't hear it from Castro's News Network, or Obamas' CNBC or othe Liberal media... This is the main reason why the left, and people from outside the U.S. think "the U.S. is so violent"... I even showed an European link that CLEARLY says Europe, and even Canada has more violent crimes than the U.S. and still we get people claiming the contrary...



Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
If someone wants to hurt you with a weapon, you don't think they will try and take your ability to use it away from you?


.... I would think it would be kind of hard for the criminal to take anyone's weapon away with their body full of lead... but if you beleive in zombies I guess you could be right...



Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
The best thing you can do as a civilian in an armed robbery is give the #er what he wants, trying to play war-hero will only get you in #.
edit on 19-12-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)


Tell that to the millions of people who saved themselves or were saved by a loved one, or someone else they knew who used a firearm on the crminal...

BTW, did it EVER cross your mind that there could be people out there that would not be so willing as you seem to want to be raped, or murdered?...


You do know that criminals also do rape and murder just for fun right?... and anyway why in the world should anyone have to give their well earned money, or other possessions to a criminal?... and please, don't give us that crap about, "oh, but you can get money, and other material possessions again, but not your life"... even people with firearms know not to try to get their weapons when they got another firearm right at their face, or on their back...


Owning firearms doesn't equal to being the "dumbest kid in the block"...

edit on 19-12-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 
I personally checked the Constitution of Australia & no where on the books is there actually recorded the right to freedom of speech. Everyone here takes it as granted but no where can the law technically be quoted.


edit on 19-12-2010 by acrux because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Hi

It seems I was wrong about this :

Still remains that Canada or England can double their crime rate and they do not even come close to the numbers of some US cities.


Excuse me.

However I was talking about overall crime rates and not specifically violent crime rates. I've gathered some figures.

Murder
Netherlands : 0.0111538 per 1,000 people
US : 0.042802 per 1,000 people

Rape
Netherlands : 0.100445 per 1,000 people
Us : 0.301318 per 1,000 people

Overall crime
Netherlands :79.5779 per 1,000 people
US :80.0645 per 1,000 people

Link.

You will also find the following link informative.
Eurostat statistics in focus 36/2009 Crime and criminal justuice

Still Crime in the Netherlands has been going down. My apologies for my assumption on US statistics being way higher. I was wrong. Prejudice has been my blindfold.

Anyway... These statistics say nothing about why people should or should not be armed with firearms.
I still stand with my previous explanation.

Like I already said I don't care about US law on firearms but I do about Dutch law on firearms.
Even when violent crime here happens more frequent then it does i the US then it still does not resemble the use or right of firearms.

The best way to lower crime rates is when they stop making everything a crime.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Well to answer your thread title, we need freedom of speech, that is the right of all humans on this planet. Although in many ways it is an illusion but yeah hmmm..

Also i will give you an example of the opposite that is true in Australia, If i am over 18 years of age according to Austtralian law it is compulsory to vote, if not i will ne fined!! Now to me in some ways it is a contradiction of Freedom of Speech, if i have the freedom to make my voice heard i should also have the freedom to be silient on matters.

Why is voting compulsory, i should have the freedom not to vote. My reason being why should i be forced to vote either labour or liberal, nationals or greens if i do not believe in any of thier slogans and promises!!

FYI: Guns are no longer available in Australia due to a phsycopath going nuts in the mid nighties with auto and semi - auto rifles and killing 20 or so people. Since the Port Arthur massicre in Tasmania the majority of hand guns and rifles have been outlawed. Pitty that hasnt happened in the states since columbine or the washington sniper or the 100's of other cases...... we live we learn... well most of the time!

Although i wish Airsoft was legal in Aus they have some wicked replicas

Also the same goes for fireworks, it sux they are illegal in the majority of Australian states, although they are available if you know the right people it is still crap they are illegal!!

FYI: Appologies for the spelling in parts of my post - ATS embedde a spell check! It saves alot of time and proof reading

edit on 19-12-2010 by Havick007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 




I lived for 9 years mostly in Spain and in Portugal... I have seen crime in Europe, and several times was almost a victim of crime in Spain.


I lived for 8 1/2 years in Chile, South America. Not much different from what you described, including people on the street stabbing others for a few pesos. This is everywhere.



BTW, yes citizens having their right to bear arms unrestricted does equal to less crime, and sorry to tell you that the UK crime problem shows this.


That's fine. But I'm discussing Australia here.



EVER since handguns were banned in the UK there have been MORE crimes and even MORE crimes with handguns


Well, in context regarding Australia: Firearms and Violent Crime in NSW

and

Gun deaths halved in past 10 years

That is from 1997 - 2005. Second one is from 2004. The Port Arthur massacre was in 28th of April 1996 (which changed gun laws in Australia, there have been many other massacres in australia related to firearms aswell, but this has been the last of its kind) Port Arthur

Since gun control laws were established, firearm related deaths have been halved. Handgun related deaths have nearly doubled in 2001, though, due to illegal acquisition. BUT, robbery with firearms from 1995 to 2005 decreased around 60%, AND handgun related deaths decreased from the 2001 peak to 20, due to greater police action against gun trafficking.

In Australia gun-control laws have effectively reduced the number of firearms related deaths, and firearms related crime.

then why is it that there are less violent crimes in the U.S. than in most, if not all European countries?...

Violent deaths by country

Have a look at this:



The US has the same if not slightly more violent deaths than all the country of Europe, with the exception of Russia, which has been a hell-hole for quite a while.




People who have firearms have to learn how to use them...


Learning how to use a firearm is easy, you midunderstand me. Learning WHEN to use a firearm is the problem. In the military you are taught when, how, and at what intensity you should use you weapon for your "defence", a civilian does not have access to that, atleast no here in Australia without military training. Pulling a gun at some person can escalate the situation, when all you have to do is run.




BTW, it is obvious by now that you don't know anything about firearms,


I know the difference between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon, thank you. In reference to the M4A1, it was a generalisation for any weapon. Are you saying an automatic weapon should not be legal? I am not sure if that is what you are insinuating.




Tell that to the women, children, disabled and elderly people who have saved themselves by using a firearm... Tell that to the people who have gained their freedom by the use of firearms... Tell that to the husbands, fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, or other family members who saved their loved ones from criminals by using a weapon... More people are saved by handguns in the hands of good civilians than crimes are committed with legal firearms...


The weapon in this case is a handgun.
Eulls saves 22 from gun-toting maniac

You don't need a firearm to defend yourself against armed assailants. What would have happened here if Eulls here had a firearm and decided to defend these people with it?



The problem is that the U.S. media loves to show mostly crimes with firearm but they almost never show when law abiding citizens stop crimes, except maybe Fox News.


I don't pay attention to the US media.




I would think it would be kind of hard for the criminal to take anyone's weapon away with their body full of lead... but if you beleive in zombies I guess you could be right


Or they could do the same to you if they see you with a weapon. Afterall their intention was to do you wrong.



BTW, did it EVER cross your mind that there could be people out there that would not be so willing as you seem to want to be raped, or murdered?...



You don't need a firearm to defend against rape and murder. There are things such as tasers and pepper spray. Even a kick to the balls is enough for a rapist, if you can't kick him in the balls what makes you think you use a taser, pepper spray or a gun? Having said that, a weapon, especially a firearm, won't suddenly materialise in your hand in the occurence of an unforeseen rape or murderous attack.

By the way, no thank you, though you probably do while having a few guys aim a firearm at your head after you failed to react.




You do know that criminals also do rape and murder just for fun right?... and anyway why in the world should anyone have to give their well earned money, or other possessions to a criminal?... and please, don't give us that crap about, "oh, but you can get money, and other material possessions again, but not your life"... even people with firearms know not to try to get their weapons when they got another firearm right at their face, or on their back...



You do know the law is filled with stupid #ing double-standards right? If you defend yourself with too much force, you end up being in "trouble" aswell. It's #ing stupid but it's there. Now let's say that does not apply. Sure. Go ahead, defend your materials. Just be aware he/she/they are/is more prepared than you are, afterall they broke into your residence first.




Owning firearms doesn't equal to being the "dumbest kid in the block"...


No. But the dumbest kids on the block will have good access to them.


Unrestrained gun-laws will do nothing for the crime rate. People will still kill, rape, steal each other. Crime rate will not decrease. Owning a gun does not magically reduce crime, it does not magically make criminals think "oh # maybe I shouldn't raid this place". And like I stated before, crime will remain at the same level, and MAY increase.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
IMHO all three of you are right, but I am trying to force those Europeans, Canadians, Australians, and others who beleive that guns must be banned to use the brain they were born with because imo they haven't used it for a while now since they have allowed themselves to become brainwashed by the rich elites so many of them claim they want to fight against.


While I have judged in the past, ive come to the conclusion, that while a ban on guns works in our country and others, it may not work in the USA.

We all have different cultures and ideals, and a ban on guns has actually been slightly beneficial for us, but wont work for the USA



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join