Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Guns Referendum In Brasil  
User currently offlineErikwilliam From Brazil, joined Mar 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 12
Posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 978 times:

Ok, as of 23rd of Octber there´ll be a public voting here, on wether fire arms and amunitions should be prohibited or not.
Among many many TV campaigns, some say: Yes, some NO.

My point is, legal weapons are just 5% of all deaths in the country(brasil)
Guns don´t kill people, people kills people.
The government is making the population decide on somthing HE, the government should be doing, wich is: public safety.
Brasil has one of the worst wasge distributions on the planet, very high level of corruption, bla bla bla.

Made my point, you guys/gals go now.

How´s in your country???


Dida, Cafu, Lucio, Roque Junior, Roberto Carlo, Emerson, Ze Roberto, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Adriano, Robinho, Ronaldo
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 964 times:

That the referendum is being called at all is embarassing. That the prohibition will probably be approved is truly embarassing. That it will be approved because the population at large is incapable of reasoning out such a simple question is the real issue.

mrocktor


User currently offlineHAJFlyer From Switzerland, joined Sep 2005, 1473 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 959 times:

Do you have a strong pro gun lobby with deep pockets like the NRA (national rifle association) in Brazil ?

User currently offlineNUair From Malaysia, joined Jun 2000, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 950 times:

Chris Rock has your answer... Increase the cost of bullets  Smile

Here in the US we have a bullet problem not a gun problem...

You don't need no gun control.
You know what you need?
We need some bullet control.
Man, we need to control the bullets, that's right.
l think all bullets should cost $ 5,000
$ 5,000 for a bullet. You know why?
'Cause if a bullet costs $ 5,000
there'd be no more innocent bystanders.
That'd be it.
Every time someone gets shot, people will
be like, ''Damn, he must have did something.
''Shit, they put $ 50,000 worth of bullets
in his ass.''
People would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost $ 5,000
''Man, l would blow your fucking head off,
if l could afford it.
''l'm gonna get me another job,
l'm gonna start saving some money...
''and you're a dead man.
''You better hope l can't get no bullets on layaway.''
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet...
you won't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out.
Whoever shot you would take their bullet back.
''l believe you got my property.''



"How Many Assholes we got on this ship?" - Lord Helmet
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 919 times:

Quoting HAJFlyer (Reply 2):
Do you have a strong pro gun lobby with deep pockets like the NRA (national rifle association) in Brazil ?

No. Brazilian culture is non-confrontational and submissive. People are happy to delegate their own security to the state and then complain about violence. There is no history of brave independent individuals to fall back uppon, it is either coercion by the state or voluntary submission to the state - depending on the period in history.

If you have a legal weapon at home, get burglarized and shoot the perpetrator you are likely to be arrested. The right to self defence is not taken seriously, people are encouraged by the media to submit to violence. I was robbed twice on buses by unarmed thugs (I was a kid then). At least ten able bodied men watched the scene each time, and offered condolences afterwards.

Thus is our culture.

mrocktor


User currently offlineHAJFlyer From Switzerland, joined Sep 2005, 1473 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 908 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 4):
Thus is our culture.

Thanks for your interesting and enlightening information!

 bigthumbsup 

It is amazing to what degree a nation´s history does influence its attitude toward guns. In Switzerland just about every male his assault rifle or pistol (it is the latter for me) at home.

As Switzerland has not been an aggressor in its recent history and used guns only to defend itself from unfriendly outsiders, a gun was never really seen as a means to solve internal/domestic disputes.

Thus the usually high rate of gun ownership (for Europe anyhow) has not resulted in a high level of crimes involving firearms.


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 905 times:

Quoting HAJFlyer (Reply 5):
It is amazing to what degree a nation´s history does influence its attitude toward guns. In Switzerland just about every male his assault rifle or pistol (it is the latter for me) at home.

Truly. And it is not a problem because in your country there is a strong culture of respecting the individual and his own judgment. Your system of referendums is a testament to this.

In this country, the first referendum in hundreds of years will be about taking freedom away from the citizen because you don't trust his judgment. Sad.

mrocktor


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 877 times:

I say everyone should have a gun, we would be a peaceful society, right?

Do we all live in a war zone? And if you are so scared you need a gun, why not demand more funding to the social services that help poor people not turn to violence as an answer?

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 6):
because you don't trust his judgment.

Well you consider poor people to be lazy and worthless, so how can you trust his/her judgement?


User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 858 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 7):
And if you are so scared you need a gun, why not demand more funding to the social services that help poor people not turn to violence as an answer?

Because you will probably be killed waiting for the reform if it is that bad. Just because I have a firearm does not mean I am turning to violence. The criminals like unarmed victims; they fear a confrontation with someone that may turn the tables on them.

If I were to follow the quote above, and petition/plead to the government so that they may build more jail space to keep criminals locked away, I might as well line up for the first snowball fight in hell.

Whether I am rich or poor, I am an American, and I can exercise the right to defend myself. Whether it be with my hands, a dull butter knife or to B744F's horror, a gun. And that right is non-negotiable so long as the rule of law is followed.


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 855 times:

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 8):
Because you will probably be killed waiting for the reform

Good idea, lets all just arm ourselves instead of trying to address the problems (poverty) that cause violence in the first place.

A scared society is not a free society


User currently offlineErikwilliam From Brazil, joined Mar 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 855 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 4):
People are happy to delegate their own security to the state and then complain about violence.

we do pay high taces for it don´t we??

Quoting HAJFlyer (Reply 5):
Thus the usually high rate of gun ownership (for Europe anyhow) has not resulted in a high level of crimes involving firearms.

most important statement about all this: guns don´t kill people, people kill people.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 6):
In this country, the first referendum in hundreds of years will be about taking freedom away from the citizen because you don't trust his judgment. Sad.

I see as the government trying to change the side of the history, and if it doesn´t get aproved, the government will say: See, I wanted to prohibit it, you guys didn´t, don´t blame me now.

Quoting B744F (Reply 7):
And if you are so scared you need a gun, why not demand more funding to the social services that help poor people not turn to violence as an answer?

 checkmark 
taxes are for this purpose, too bad they don´t aply this rule here.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 8):
Whether I am rich or poor, I am an American, and I can exercise the right to defend myself. Whether it be with my hands, a dull butter knife or to B744F's horror, a gun. And that right is non-negotiable so long as the rule of law is followed.

as long as everybody thinks as the Swiss, everything should be ok.



Dida, Cafu, Lucio, Roque Junior, Roberto Carlo, Emerson, Ze Roberto, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Adriano, Robinho, Ronaldo
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 843 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 7):
I say everyone should have a gun, we would be a peaceful society, right?

It's about the right to own a gun. I don't have one myself, though I could (for now).

Quoting B744F (Reply 7):
Well you consider poor people to be lazy and worthless, so how can you trust his/her judgement?

No, I don't consider that, though you do - every time you assume that they "need help". And if you didn't notice, I'm defending that we should trust the citizen's judgment.

Quoting Miamiair (Reply 8):
Whether I am rich or poor, I am an American, and I can exercise the right to defend myself. Whether it be with my hands, a dull butter knife or to B744F's horror, a gun. And that right is non-negotiable so long as the rule of law is followed.

 checkmark 

Quoting Erikwilliam (Reply 10):
most important statement about all this: guns don´t kill people, people kill people.

 checkmark 

Quoting Erikwilliam (Reply 10):
if it doesn´t get aproved, the government will say: See, I wanted to prohibit it, you guys didn´t, don´t blame me now.

I think this is quite likely. Still, the fact that the right decision will be misused by the government publicists does not justify making the wrong decision.

Quoting Erikwilliam (Reply 10):
taxes are for this purpose, too bad they don´t aply this rule here

I disagree, taxes are to pay for government services, not to support people - no matter how needy. Like I've said before, I live my life at the expense of no one, and will not accept others to live at my expense.

mrocktor


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 840 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 9):
Good idea, lets all just arm ourselves instead of trying to address the problems (poverty) that cause violence in the first place.

Because socialism cures everything right?

Can we now have a wacko tangent please that points out that the USSR had a negligable crime rate... so that I can point out they also had negligable freedom, and a piss poor standard of living? It's all well and good to claim that mass out pouring of tax dollars can fix crime, because it can, but will you like the nation you have left over afterwards? Public programs will only help the criminals who want to go straight. For the rest, you can only force them as they often find criminal life easier then honest living. Unless you've figured out a method to ferret out and neutralize these people before they commit their crimes, there is a very valid argument for personal self defense. Of course.. if you are pro-actively arresting future criminals, the constitution has gone right out the window.


User currently offlineErikwilliam From Brazil, joined Mar 2004, 2152 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 836 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 11):
I disagree, taxes are to pay for government services, not to support people - no matter how needy. Like I've said before, I live my life at the expense of no one, and will not accept others to live at my expense.

agreed, but, it´s not up to you or me do decide which way taxes will be aplyied or anything, or wich taxes you´d like to pay or not.
We currently pay taxes that support: education, public safety and public health, among other things. Unfortunatly, the taxes we pay aren´t used in the proper way, making the midle class joe pay for Pivate schools, hospitals and body guards.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 11):
Still, the fact that the right decision will be misused by the government publicists does not justify making the wrong decision.

r u saying that allowing guns is the wrong decision?



Dida, Cafu, Lucio, Roque Junior, Roberto Carlo, Emerson, Ze Roberto, Ronaldinho, Kaka, Adriano, Robinho, Ronaldo
User currently offlineSolarix From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 831 times:

Liberals should never be against allowing citizens to own guns.
After all, that would defeat the whole idea of "Pro-Choice" right?  Smile


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 827 times:

Quoting Erikwilliam (Reply 13):
but, it´s not up to you or me do decide which way taxes will be aplyied or anything, or wich taxes you´d like to pay or not.

Yes it is, though the process is too indirect for you or me to have a decisive influence. Still, our vote is the best we can do.

Quoting Erikwilliam (Reply 13):
r u saying that allowing guns is the wrong decision?

Allowing gun ownership is the correct decision, though it will be used as an excuse by the government as you stated.

mrocktor


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 820 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 12):
so that I can point out they also had negligable freedom, and a piss poor standard of living?

It doesn't matter how low the standards were, less guns = less crime

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 12):
but will you like the nation you have left over afterwards?

Depends on who runs it. Currupt politicians like those that ran the USSR, definately a scary thought.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 813 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 16):
It doesn't matter how low the standards were, less guns = less crime

If this assertion were true, then there was no crime before the invention of the firearm.

Which is of course untrue.

To take your statement on step further. Isn't the intentional destruction of standard of living a crime according to the UN human rights commission? Not to mention the UN's statements on outright government oppression. Would you not then be stateing that the commission of crime is acceptable to reduce the rate of crime?

Quoting B744F (Reply 16):

Depends on who runs it. Currupt politicians like those that ran the USSR, definately a scary thought.

Any nation which would assert absolute government authority to reduce crime rate is a scary thought... even if snoopy were running it.

Crime will happen, guns or not.
Crime will happen, even if your citizens are all reasonably well off.

The only way to completely suppress crime is to pro-actively suppress it... a solution that is completely and totally unacceptable in any democratic society. With the baseline assumption that there will be crime, you are left with two options: 1) allow people to defend themselves. 2) accept victimization. At least in the United States, 2 will never be acceptable, which leaves you with 1. If you are to allow citizens the right of self defense, you must allow them to at least defend themselves with the same capability as thier attackers are likely to employee. Being as how guns will never be eliminated from the world as long as some developing nation can make money produceing them, the only logical choice is to allow your competant citizens to arm themselves with guns.


User currently offlineFMAL From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 486 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 812 times:

This referendum is a joke at best.

Even if "Yes" wins, which I believe is a lock, nothing will be done. This is not a situation where, if the people say "Yes", lets prohibit, it will be done. They would still need to pass legislation on it, and in comes the lobby, which may not be strong, but then again they never really need to act in the past. Brazil houses a major arms manufacturer, Taurus. I'm guessing they'd have a talk with our very distinctive politicians.

I will vote NO, for sure. The guns who are in the hands of the people who are killing other people are not legal, they will not be taken out of circulation. My father has 3 guns, all registered in the Army and he has the right to carry weapons. His guns will be taken (he used to go to shooting ranges, hasn't done it in at least 5 years), as the Army will simply send him correspondence and ask for the guns. So they're out. But then again they rarely got out of my house.

The drug lords and common thiefs, who carry guns, will not be touched. Their guns are safe, simply because they don't exist from a legal standpoint. They're not registered.

This government is pathetic, and should be overthrown immediately. If this country was a serious country, Lula and his goons would have been driven out of office long ago. This referendum is designed to take attention away from the corruption scandals that have become all too common in this country and in all segments of our society, not only congress. The question it self is wrong: "Do you think that the sales of fireweapons and ammunition should be banned in Brazil?". Its designed so you'd vote YES. Nobody wants violence, but the prohibition of the legal sale of weapons will do absolutely nothing to drop the current astonishing high levels of crime in this country.

Those are my opinions at least....


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 808 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 17):
Being as how guns will never be eliminated from the world as long as some developing nation can make money produceing them, the only logical choice is to allow your competant citizens to arm themselves with guns.

Or drastically reduce gun ownership making it harder for criminals to steal guns from registered gun owners (you do realize that is where the majority of guns come from that are used in crimes, right?)

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 17):
If this assertion were true, then there was no crime before the invention of the firearm.

No crime? Wrong, try, LESS crime

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 17):
Any nation which would assert absolute government authority to reduce crime rate is a scary thought... even if snoopy were running it.

I never said you would need absolute authority. First of all the government can spy on anybody they want, the Patriot Act allows this, even though they were doing it much earlier. Secondly, you have no idea how to fight crime in the first place. You choose to be reactive instead of proactive and of course nothing will ever get better

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 17):
Crime will happen, guns or not.
Crime will happen, even if your citizens are all reasonably well off.

Nonsense, certain crimes will never go away, but the vast majority of violent crimes would NOT happen if the citizens were all reasonably well off.

Quoting FMAL (Reply 18):
The drug lords and common thiefs, who carry guns, will not be touched. Their guns are safe, simply because they don't exist from a legal standpoint. They're not registered.

Where do you think these criminals get their guns? Do you honestly believe that gun smuggling is such a big business compared to stealing registered guns?


User currently offlineFMAL From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 486 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 804 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 19):
Where do you think these criminals get their guns? Do you honestly believe that gun smuggling is such a big business compared to stealing registered guns?

Let me see if I got what you said here. You're saying that the robbery of registered guns is much bigger market then the smuggling of ilegal guns, is that it?


User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 802 times:

Depending on the country, yes

User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 800 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 19):
Or drastically reduce gun ownership making it harder for criminals to steal guns from registered gun owners (you do realize that is where the majority of guns come from that are used in crimes, right?)

Yes, most guns used in crimes are stolen from legal owners. Yes, makeing private ownership illegal would make it harder from criminals to get guns. No, it would not eliminate criminals with guns. Yes, it would eliminated citizens defending themselves against the criminals with guns. Yes, groups outside the US would very likely increase illegal importation of firearms to help support a new black market on them. Outlawing coccaine hasn't exactly gotten rid of it yet has it?

However, assumeing that somehow firearms to completely dissapear from the face of the planet to never return.. do you next go after crow bars, baseball bats, and long screwdrivers?

Quoting B744F (Reply 19):

No crime? Wrong, try, LESS crime

I find it hard to believe that you have any credible source of crime rates prior to the invention of the firearm.

Quoting B744F (Reply 19):

I never said you would need absolute authority.

If you are going to remove the need for the individual to defend themselves, then yes, you are going to need absolute authoirty as that is the only way to assure that no individual will ever be put in a position that they need to defend themselves.

Quoting B744F (Reply 19):

First of all the government can spy on anybody they want, the Patriot Act allows this, even though they were doing it much earlier

Other then being an outstanding Art Bell moment... this has what to do with anything?

Quoting B744F (Reply 19):

Secondly, you have no idea how to fight crime in the first place.

I would love to see how you have reached this conclusion. Really I would.

Quoting B744F (Reply 19):

You choose to be reactive instead of proactive and of course nothing will ever get better

apparetnly you don't understand the difference in the terms "crime prevention" and "pro-active crime suppression". I am all for community based crime prevention initatives.

I am also a realist. You can do a million and one things to help prevent crime, but short of eliminateing personal rights you can not eliminate it.

Quoting B744F (Reply 19):

Nonsense, certain crimes will never go away, but the vast majority of violent crimes would NOT happen if the citizens were all reasonably well off.

Do you think rape is a crime that occurs based on income differentials? How about non-theft assaults? Domestic violence? Did OJ kill nicole because of a payroll dispute? There is a place for the exampination of poverty and income differentials in determining the causation of crime, but it is far from THE reason for crime.

You are suggesting that personal protection can be eliminated by forwarding humanity into a eutopian paradise that no one has yet to figure out how to accomplish. As much as you may think that throwing money at the problem will achieve the end goal, it will not. Until such time as we reach the eutopian crime free paradise (which assuredly will require an review of the ethics of altering the gentic patterns foudn to repeat in some ciminals) why do you insist that citizens not be allowed the right to defend themselves?

[Edited 2005-10-05 23:27:29]

User currently offlineB744F From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 791 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 22):
Outlawing coccaine hasn't exactly gotten rid of it yet has it?

Tell me exactly how easy it is to smuggle weapons into this country compared to cocaine

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 22):
Other then being an outstanding Art Bell moment... this has what to do with anything?

By showing you the government already has almost absolute powers, the ability to take away your rights at any moment without due process, etc. This isn't about Art Bell, this is about the legality of government powers currently granted to the Justice Department

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 22):
There is a place for the exampination of poverty and income differentials in determining the causation of crime, but it is far from THE reason for crime.

Far from the reason? Give me a break! It is the BIGGEST reason for crime

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 22):
the gentic patterns foudn to repeat in some ciminals

I hear criminals breathe air too!!

There are no genetic paterns found in criminals except bad family/peer experiences in the past, and poverty

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 22):
why do you insist that citizens not be allowed the right to defend themselves?

Because your "right to defend yourself" causes a society full of fear and hatred, suspicion, and violence. That is just like spending billions on new jails but less on social services and education. That is just like funding the overbloated military but forcing police to write more tickets to get enough money for funding.

[Edited 2005-10-06 00:59:59]

User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 783 times:

Quoting B744F (Reply 23):
Tell me exactly how easy it is to smuggle weapons into this country compared to cocaine

Considering that a couple dozen Norinco manufactured PPK clones can be walked across the border in a backpack without triggering drug dogs or even being minimally searched at walk through crossings in US/Mex border towns.. very easily.

As to the ease of smuggling whole trucks of weapons through. Probably about the same easy in smuggling whole trucks of drugs through. Since we know the later happens, assumeing the former wouldn't happen seems abit optomistic.

Quoting B744F (Reply 23):

By showing you the government already has almost absolute powers, the ability to take away your rights at any moment without due process, etc.

Yeah... ok... sure there budy. Watch out, black helicopter circling your house.

Quoting B744F (Reply 23):

Far from the reason? Give me a break! It is the BIGGEST reason for crime

I suppose you can show us the DOJ or NIJ report stateing that poverty is the single largest contributing factor in crime?

Quoting B744F (Reply 23):

There are no genetic paterns found in criminals except bad family/peer experiences in the past, and poverty

Oh good lord.

Do you know anything about criminology?
http://www.nutrition4health.org/NOHA...s/NNSp88CriminalImbalenceWalsh.htm
http://www.law.duke.edu/features/2005/lcp.html

I can come up with dozens more. There is a clearly established genetic predisposition in certain individuals to be more likely to be criminal. Notice I say "predisposition", not that people are genetically criminal. If you did not know about genetic studies being tied to criminal behavior and still entirely enmbrace the "nurture" side of the argument I think you are lagging about thirty years behind current criminological research.

Quoting B744F (Reply 23):

Because your "right to defend yourself" causes a society full of fear and hatred, suspicion, and violence.

Why does my possesing a gun cause fear in you? Do you fear the weapon itself, or the weapon being used in a criminal act? If it's the criminal act, why not fear anything else that could be used to commit a criminal act? A pencil through the eye is as deadly as a 9mm+p. Do you fear pencils?

Why does it cause hatred? I can't even guess why the possession of a firearm causes hatred..
Why does it cause violence? And there would be no violence without firearms? I must wonder how things like the ultimate fighting championship exist them... being celebrations of violence. I also wonder about small things like... oh.. the crusades.

You are pandering, plain and simple.

Quoting B744F (Reply 23):

That is just like spending billions on new jails but less on social services and education.

I don't believe I have adressed at all theories or spending in regard to rehabilitaion, incarceration or public saftey programs. I believe I have only addressed the individuals right to defend himslef and the states inabilty to provide absolute protection without violation of civil libarties. If you wish to continue to pigeon hole my ideas about the other facets of public saftey without first even bothering to learn them, by all means continue. But I must warn you, you come off as being bitter, shallow, and completely without merit.

Quoting B744F (Reply 23):

That is just like funding the overbloated military but forcing police to write more tickets to get enough money for funding.

You have gone completely off topic, through left field and over a cliff now.


25 Miamiair : You hit the nail on the head. Every time I read one of B744F's posts, I am tempted to buy him a ticket to China or even Cuba, where there is supposed
26 AMSGOT : I would vote against. I'm still surprised or a kind of shocked when I see a real gun and I'm quite sure a large majority of the population here in The
27 Miamiair : I carry a firearm. I am allowed to carry a concealed weapon by my state. I believe I am level headed and would not use a firearm to stop a pick-pocket
28 AMSGOT : Good point. Of course I would want to protect my family. But I just wouldn't know, I havn't got a clue. I think one could compare it to cold war time
29 Aviation : I vote that prohibishion is a good thing why do so many people need guns! I have guns here in Australia and for them I own a license to have them and
30 FMAL : For the Swiss maybe, Brazil, US, Mexico, you name it....never. We're talking about Brazil here, and it naive at best to assume that the theft of lega
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Paris Hilton In Brasil posted Wed Sep 14 2005 21:49:51 by Erikwilliam
Valentines In Brasil Sunday posted Fri Jun 10 2005 14:04:43 by Erikwilliam
Why No Referendum In All EU Countries? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 22:04:34 by RootsAir
Pellot Guns Illegal In CA? posted Sun Mar 21 2004 23:44:44 by NWAir757
Referendum EU Constitution In The Netherlands? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 19:43:27 by OO-VEG
What Shall (...) You Vote In Sunday's Referendum? posted Tue May 24 2005 09:03:07 by UTA_flyinghigh
Police Officers And Guns In Your Country. posted Wed Feb 9 2005 09:57:10 by OYRJA
Pettitte Back In The Bronx. posted Sat Dec 9 2006 00:02:19 by NIKV69
Terror Threat In Livingston, Scotland? posted Fri Dec 8 2006 22:01:57 by Pawsleykat
1st Arrest In Alaska Goverment Corruption Scandal posted Fri Dec 8 2006 09:03:33 by L-188