INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Leto729 on November 22, 2008, 12:14:41 PM
-
I found this interesting.
Note it is a bit long in reading.
http://unicameralupdate.blogspot.com/search/label/LB157
-
I think they should have kept it at 17 and under.
-
I think they should have kept it at 17 and under.
I agree. If there are people who are so desperate to get help taking care of their children that they would actually drive from Georgia or Iowa to Nebraska to make use of such a law, then maybe there really needs to be a similar law in every state.
Ann Schumacher, CEO of Alegent Health Immanuel Medical Center, testified that the appropriate age limit for the safe haven law is one year. She said safe haven cases in Nebraska usually have involved families that have run out of options.
“It is time that we as a state, community and country address the mental health crisis that permeates our (society),” Schumacher said.
...Some senators were apprehensive about narrowing the age range, because they said families had voiced concerns that the only way for them to obtain needed services for their children was to surrender them under the safe haven law.
-
reagan shut down the mental health facilities here, when he wa the governator.
-
What exactly is a Safe Haven Law?
-
you drop off your kid and the state will take care of them.
they first started because too many teens were abandoning their newborns in dumpsters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRj-S8Aklcw
-
I wouldn't call that a safe haven. Many childrens' lives have been destroyed that way.
A safe haven IMHO is when a caring relative or friend prevents the authorities from intervening by self taking care of the child.
-
I wouldn't call that a safe haven. Many childrens' lives have been destroyed that way.
A safe haven IMHO is when a caring relative or friend prevents the authorities from intervening by self taking care of the child.
look around at the current world we live in and the competition for limited resources.
a safe haven would be letting them die before they have to experience this crap.,
-
I wouldn't call that a safe haven. Many childrens' lives have been destroyed that way.
A safe haven IMHO is when a caring relative or friend prevents the authorities from intervening by self taking care of the child.
look around at the current world we live in and the competition for limited resources.
a safe haven would be letting them die before they have to experience this crap.,
Agreed. Alas. :(
-
you drop off your kid and the state will take care of them.
they first started because too many teens were abandoning their newborns in dumpsters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRj-S8Aklcw
Having it go up until someone is teenage is a bit ridiculous - I thought the idea would be that social workers would work with the families in preventing it from happening.
-
universal healthcare is also rediculous. but i guess that some people get some benefits from it.
-
universal healthcare is also rediculous. but i guess that some people get some benefits from it.
Having a national health service is brilliant - the USA should have gotten one about 60 years ago.
-
you drop off your kid and the state will take care of them.
they first started because too many teens were abandoning their newborns in dumpsters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRj-S8Aklcw
Having it go up until someone is teenage is a bit ridiculous - I thought the idea would be that social workers would work with the families in preventing it from happening.
In Sweden they can take anyone up to 18 years from their parents for whatever reason they find out. I know perfectly law-abiding parents with good jobs having their kids taken from them because of rumours that they were alcoholics...guess why I hate Swedish authorities...
-
universal healthcare is also rediculous. but i guess that some people get some benefits from it.
Having a national health service is brilliant - the USA should have gotten one about 60 years ago.
should they?
better for those of us who do have great benefits. we get sick and are treated like royalty.
you know all about royalty, dontcha?
-
Having it go up until someone is teenage is a bit ridiculous - I thought the idea would be that social workers would work with the families in preventing it from happening.
In Sweden they can take anyone up to 18 years from their parents for whatever reason they find out. I know perfectly law-abiding parents with good jobs having their kids taken from them because of rumours that they were alcoholics...guess why I hate Swedish authorities...
[/quote]
safe haven is not theft from the state. it is a gift TO the state.
-
Having it go up until someone is teenage is a bit ridiculous - I thought the idea would be that social workers would work with the families in preventing it from happening.
In Sweden they can take anyone up to 18 years from their parents for whatever reason they find out. I know perfectly law-abiding parents with good jobs having their kids taken from them because of rumours that they were alcoholics...guess why I hate Swedish authorities...
safe haven is not theft from the state. it is a gift TO the state.
[/quote]
The Swedish state cannot steal or lie or be wrong in any other way... :grrr:
-
all governments are fucked up. some are more sophisticated than others. sweden probably aint that bad.
-
No, it's for sure better than Iran, North Korea or Saudi Arabia.
-
No, it's for sure better than Iran, North Korea or Saudi Arabia.
maybe north korea.
but i bet the majhority of saudis and iranians think their system is just fine.
-
I doubt that. But Swedes are not dumb, just too nice and submissive.
-
do you live in saudi arabia as an arab?
-
do you live in saudi arabia as an arab?
No, but my dad lived there in 1979-80 and knew a few of them.
-
do you live in saudi arabia as an arab?
No, but my dad lived there in 1979-80 and knew a few of them.
the swedes are so gullible. believing people when people are simply telling them what they want to be told.
-
do you live in saudi arabia as an arab?
No, but my dad lived there in 1979-80 and knew a few of them.
the swedes are so gullible. believing people when people are simply telling them what they want to be told.
Why would they say to him that their country is shit, when they risk death penalty for saying that to a foreigner?
-
do you live in saudi arabia as an arab?
No, but my dad lived there in 1979-80 and knew a few of them.
the swedes are so gullible. believing people when people are simply telling them what they want to be told.
Why would they say to him that their country is shit, when they risk death penalty for saying that to a foreigner?
that was a time of an oil crisis. they were just softening up the gullible foriegner.
-
universal healthcare is also rediculous. but i guess that some people get some benefits from it.
Having a national health service is brilliant - the USA should have gotten one about 60 years ago.
should they?
better for those of us who do have great benefits. we get sick and are treated like royalty.
you know all about royalty, dontcha?
Anyone who does not think the National Health Service is good enough is welcome to buy private insurance instead. Few do so over here however - I wonder why...?
-
my wife got an extra pillow last time she went into the hospital. and i recieved the happy ending.
-
universal healthcare is also rediculous. but i guess that some people get some benefits from it.
Having a national health service is brilliant - the USA should have gotten one about 60 years ago.
should they?
better for those of us who do have great benefits. we get sick and are treated like royalty.
you know all about royalty, dontcha?
Anyone who does not think the National Health Service is good enough is welcome to buy private insurance instead. Few do so over here however - I wonder why...?
The rich do in Sweden. Public health care sucks here nowadays. :(
-
universal healthcare is also rediculous. but i guess that some people get some benefits from it.
Having a national health service is brilliant - the USA should have gotten one about 60 years ago.
should they?
better for those of us who do have great benefits. we get sick and are treated like royalty.
you know all about royalty, dontcha?
Anyone who does not think the National Health Service is good enough is welcome to buy private insurance instead. Few do so over here however - I wonder why...?
The rich do in Sweden. Public health care sucks here nowadays. :(
The rich do it over here because they are snobs - nothing much else. When things go badly wrong they always run with their tails between their legs into the nations health service. Preferably I would like to leave them outside to rot as an example....
-
The rich do it over here because they are snobs - nothing much else. When things go badly wrong they always run with their tails between their legs into the nations health service. Preferably I would like to leave them outside to rot as an example....
you feel this way until you turn 40 and start earning a little coin.
-
The rich do it over here because they are snobs - nothing much else. When things go badly wrong they always run with their tails between their legs into the nations health service. Preferably I would like to leave them outside to rot as an example....
you feel this way until you turn 40 and start earning a little coin.
Not at all - I wont be wasting my money on private health insurance, its pointless.
-
The rich do it over here because they are snobs - nothing much else. When things go badly wrong they always run with their tails between their legs into the nations health service. Preferably I would like to leave them outside to rot as an example....
you feel this way until you turn 40 and start earning a little coin.
Not at all - I wont be wasting my money on private health insurance, its pointless.
So you trust you government to take care of you? Your nuts I don't trust mine to do much of anything right or in a timely fashion
-
The rich do it over here because they are snobs - nothing much else. When things go badly wrong they always run with their tails between their legs into the nations health service. Preferably I would like to leave them outside to rot as an example....
you feel this way until you turn 40 and start earning a little coin.
Not at all - I wont be wasting my money on private health insurance, its pointless.
So you trust you government to take care of you? Your nuts I don't trust mine to do much of anything right or in a timely fashion
You are ultimately protected by government anyway - what if your HMO, if you got ill, defaulted on paying for your healthcare. You would have to trust the government to put it right.
So really you are no better protected than myself, despite paying through the nose for it.
-
I only trust my government to fuck it up. How long do you wait for an appointment?
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
-
We have good health care in so called primary healt care centers, i.e., where you go for quick treatment of minor damages or diseases. I can come the same day if I'm lucky, and that only costs about US$15 to see a doctor and US$10 to see a nurse. It's worse with major surgery and such, but it worked very good before about 1990.
Though I don't trust my government one whit. Public health care isn't governmental in Sweden, though; the county boards administrate it.
-
I only trust my government to fuck it up. How long do you wait for an appointment?
With open surgery it can be instant. Most surgeries I can get seen same day - if its an emergency then immediately. The GP can come and do a home visit too.
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
-
When I was in Scotland, I waited about a month for an appointment, then got expensive allergy meds for dirt cheap, but I basically ended up prescribing them to myself. The doctor in my consultation didn't know enough to distinguish one eczema med from another in the dictionary of prescriptions she was referencing on the spot, so I read over her shoulder and told her what to sign for.
In the USA, I went to a private allergy specialist armed with extensive test results from five years ago, only to spend half the appointment being told by the doctor that his "competition", another allergy specialist in a completely different state, was a quack, he had no evidence I was allergic to gluten, and I should immediately start eating wheat products again. I walked out with different pills than the ones that had worked for me in the past, because a different drug company had been courting this doctor and he insisted I try the new pills first "to see if they work", even though both types of pills would be equally available from pharmacies.
Different systems, different flaws.
-
I had eye surgery in 1991; that I had to pay for myself, because I was just short-sighted, so that was considered "cosmetical". Though if anyone wishes to change gender, the public health care pays for it. Sweden in a nutshell. ::)
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
-
I had eye surgery in 1991; that I had to pay for myself, because I was just short-sighted, so that was considered "cosmetical". Though if anyone wishes to change gender, the public health care pays for it. Sweden in a nutshell. ::)
:laugh:
They'll cut off your dick for free but not fix your eyes :lol:
-
I had eye surgery in 1991; that I had to pay for myself, because I was just short-sighted, so that was considered "cosmetical". Though if anyone wishes to change gender, the public health care pays for it. Sweden in a nutshell. ::)
:laugh:
They'll cut off your dick for free but not fix your eyes :lol:
Yes. Sweden is the feast of weirdness. You need a license for an airgun with a muzzle velocity over 200 meters/s and/or an impact over 10 J/cm2, but a cannon is free to buy. It's also legal to look on child pornography in Sweden, as long as you don't save it on your computer, and zoophilia is legal as long as you don't hurt the animal...
-
I had eye surgery in 1991; that I had to pay for myself, because I was just short-sighted, so that was considered "cosmetical". Though if anyone wishes to change gender, the public health care pays for it. Sweden in a nutshell. ::)
:laugh:
They'll cut off your dick for free but not fix your eyes :lol:
Yes. Sweden is the feast of weirdness. You need a license for an airgun with a muzzle velocity over 200 meters/s and/or an impact over 10 J/cm2, but a cannon is free to buy. It's also legal to look on child pornography in Sweden, as long as you don't save it on your computer, and zoophilia is legal as long as you don't hurt the animal...
What's weird about those laws? Cannons are heavy, unwieldy and expensive items, whereas any bored kid could get an airgun and start shooting squirrels, cats, windows and putting people's eyes out. Looking at CP while being unable to save CP makes it easy to prosecute the producers of CP, who will necessarily possess it in order to distribute it, while protecting those who view it, who are too numerous to make it feasible or desirable to criminalise them all, and protecting those who view it accidentally. Zoophilia doesn't cause harm any more than regular sex with people does; forcing a person or animal is harmful, but plenty of people and plenty of animals are horny and willing.
-
You can buy a small cannon relatively cheap.
Though airguns with a muzzle velocity of 199 meters/s will also easily hurt an animal and put out an eye.
The gender change thing is much weirder. About 10% of the gender benders regret having surgery afterwards, though I've never heard that anyone regretted a successful eye surgery.
-
Just what do you mean by cannon?
-
(http://www.1864.dk/scripts/dbimage.php3?ID=3138)
-
Do they shoot shot or just blanks. Can you buy black powder without a license for them? I think I would get arrested for firing one around here but I think I could get one. Someone about a mile from me has a 37mm anti tank gun from WW2 on there lawn. I have shells for it :laugh:
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
When you look into the sky, do you see pie?
:hahaha:
-
I had eye surgery in 1991; that I had to pay for myself, because I was just short-sighted, so that was considered "cosmetical". Though if anyone wishes to change gender, the public health care pays for it. Sweden in a nutshell. ::)
:laugh:
They'll cut off your dick for free but not fix your eyes :lol:
Yes. Sweden is the feast of weirdness. You need a license for an airgun with a muzzle velocity over 200 meters/s and/or an impact over 10 J/cm2, but a cannon is free to buy. It's also legal to look on child pornography in Sweden, as long as you don't save it on your computer, and zoophilia is legal as long as you don't hurt the animal...
I have a 5mm air rifle that I can pump up to a similar muzzle velocity (three to five pumps), even using "match grade, high sectional density" ammunition. I have taken out a wild dog with it. A head shot will penetrate the skull from about forty meters.
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
-
Do they shoot shot or just blanks. Can you buy black powder without a license for them? I think I would get arrested for firing one around here but I think I could get one. Someone about a mile from me has a 37mm anti tank gun from WW2 on there lawn. I have shells for it :laugh:
They can shoot shots but they almost just shoot blanks with them.
Gunpowder is license free, both smokeless and black and blank shots are also license free, though you need a permit to actually fire the gun.
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
It's only I and about 10 more Europeans that get that simple concept. That's why we have gun laws "rewarding" the criminals...
-
Do they shoot shot or just blanks. Can you buy black powder without a license for them? I think I would get arrested for firing one around here but I think I could get one. Someone about a mile from me has a 37mm anti tank gun from WW2 on there lawn. I have shells for it :laugh:
They can shoot shots but they almost just shoot blanks with them.
Gunpowder is license free, both smokeless and black and blank shots are also license free, though you need a permit to actually fire the gun.
What's legal as far as fireworks are concerned? Also as far as guns go can you have one shot black power rifles? If not why don't they regulate black or smokeless powder?
-
Do they shoot shot or just blanks. Can you buy black powder without a license for them? I think I would get arrested for firing one around here but I think I could get one. Someone about a mile from me has a 37mm anti tank gun from WW2 on there lawn. I have shells for it :laugh:
They can shoot shots but they almost just shoot blanks with them.
Gunpowder is license free, both smokeless and black and blank shots are also license free, though you need a permit to actually fire the gun.
What's legal as far as fireworks are concerned? Also as far as guns go can you have one shot black power rifles? If not why don't they regulate black or smokeless powder?
All fireworks containing up to 1 kilo of powder, except mortars, are free to the public, though you can usually buy "cakes" weighing several kilos without a problem. All rockets are free this far. 4" mortars will be banned when they run out of store. :( Then only 3" will be legal.
You can have black powder rifles but they must be from before 1890, otherwise you need a license, so there aren't many license free real guns left.
You can't do much with the gun powder if you can't get a gun, so I guess that's why it's still free. IMHO gun laws are a joke. The gross criminals here have military arms; machine guns and bazookas...
-
Do they shoot shot or just blanks. Can you buy black powder without a license for them? I think I would get arrested for firing one around here but I think I could get one. Someone about a mile from me has a 37mm anti tank gun from WW2 on there lawn. I have shells for it :laugh:
They can shoot shots but they almost just shoot blanks with them.
Gunpowder is license free, both smokeless and black and blank shots are also license free, though you need a permit to actually fire the gun.
What's legal as far as fireworks are concerned? Also as far as guns go can you have one shot black power rifles? If not why don't they regulate black or smokeless powder?
All fireworks containing up to 1 kilo of powder, except mortars, are free to the public, though you can usually buy "cakes" weighing several kilos without a problem. All rockets are free this far. 4" mortars will be banned when they run out of store. :( Then only 3" will be legal.
You can have black powder rifles but they must be from before 1890, otherwise you need a license, so there aren't many license free real guns left.
You can't do much with the gun powder if you can't get a gun, so I guess that's why it's still free. IMHO gun laws are a joke. The gross criminals here have military arms; machine guns and bazookas...
How about doing some hobby machining :zoinks: http://www.cncguns.com/projects.html
-
Do they shoot shot or just blanks. Can you buy black powder without a license for them? I think I would get arrested for firing one around here but I think I could get one. Someone about a mile from me has a 37mm anti tank gun from WW2 on there lawn. I have shells for it :laugh:
They can shoot shots but they almost just shoot blanks with them.
Gunpowder is license free, both smokeless and black and blank shots are also license free, though you need a permit to actually fire the gun.
What's legal as far as fireworks are concerned? Also as far as guns go can you have one shot black power rifles? If not why don't they regulate black or smokeless powder?
All fireworks containing up to 1 kilo of powder, except mortars, are free to the public, though you can usually buy "cakes" weighing several kilos without a problem. All rockets are free this far. 4" mortars will be banned when they run out of store. :( Then only 3" will be legal.
You can have black powder rifles but they must be from before 1890, otherwise you need a license, so there aren't many license free real guns left.
You can't do much with the gun powder if you can't get a gun, so I guess that's why it's still free. IMHO gun laws are a joke. The gross criminals here have military arms; machine guns and bazookas...
How about doing some hobby machining :zoinks: http://www.cncguns.com/projects.html
The thought has struck my mind. 8)
-
http://www.1864.dk/scripts/dbimage.php3?ID=3138 (http://www.1864.dk/scripts/dbimage.php3?ID=3138)
Let me know when the local kids start shooting people's pets with those.
-
http://www.1864.dk/scripts/dbimage.php3?ID=3138 (http://www.1864.dk/scripts/dbimage.php3?ID=3138)
Let me know when the local kids start shooting people's pets with those.
I like my neighbors pets I'd rather shoot them
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness :P We use fists here but guns and knives usually win
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness :P We use fists here but guns and knives usually win
Knifes are useless against someone good with his fists so to speak. Nearly no-one has guns over here as well - most police officers are not allowed within miles of them even.
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
I do fine with my fists. I was on a boxing team once. In fact, I still work out on a punching bag almost every day. Not much, but for a half hour or more if I feel the mood. I recommend it highly as a mild form of exercise. Getting my feet into it gets my heart rate up, too. Even at my age, I am quite confident in a "fist fight."
What I was talking about though, actually happened a few miles from where I live, last week end. Two low-life crack heads broke into an older couple's house to rob them. They had guns. The old man's gun was "trigger locked" to make it SAFE, ffs. He finally got the trigger unlocked and wounded one of the robbers, but they got him in the head with two shots and then shot his wife, robbed them anyway. She is still alive, but he is dead.
That old man stood zero chance in a fight with them with just fists and his gun had a proper lock on it, making it practically useless.
Had he been able to react quickly, the cops would have found two dead robbers, instead.
Someone invading my house, will have made a fatal mistake.
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness :P We use fists here but guns and knives usually win
Knifes are useless against someone good with his fists so to speak. Nearly no-one has guns over here as well - most police officers are not allowed within miles of them even.
Really good maybe would you chance it? And here guns are cheep and plentiful
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
I do fine with my fists. I was on a boxing team once. In fact, I still work out on a punching bag almost every day. Not much, but for a half hour or more if I feel the mood. I recommend it highly as a mild form of exercise. Getting my feet into it gets my heart rate up, too. Even at my age, I am quite confident in a "fist fight."
What I was talking about though, actually happened a few miles from where I live, last week end. Two low-life crack heads broke into an older couple's house to rob them. They had guns. The old man's gun was "trigger locked" to make it SAFE, ffs. He finally got the trigger unlocked and wounded one of the robbers, but they got him in the head with two shots and then shot his wife, robbed them anyway. She is still alive, but he is dead.
That old man stood zero chance in a fight with them with just fists and his gun had a proper lock on it, making it practically useless.
Had he been able to react quickly, the cops would have found two dead robbers, instead.
Someone invading my house, will have made a fatal mistake.
The worst that would realistically happen (without it becoming national news bigtime) is the old guys would have been beaten up a little over here - guns would have had nothing to do with it. There is a case over here a few years back of someone who did shoot and kill someone invading their house - it was in the national media for about a month and the guy got done for manslaughter. Property over life is just ridiculous imo.
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness :P We use fists here but guns and knives usually win
Knifes are useless against someone good with his fists so to speak. Nearly no-one has guns over here as well - most police officers are not allowed within miles of them even.
Really good maybe would you chance it? And here guns are cheep and plentiful
As long as I don't go to a really rough inner city area then no-one would bother to carry a knife even. Though if I feel like it - I can run away happily.
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
I do fine with my fists. I was on a boxing team once. In fact, I still work out on a punching bag almost every day. Not much, but for a half hour or more if I feel the mood. I recommend it highly as a mild form of exercise. Getting my feet into it gets my heart rate up, too. Even at my age, I am quite confident in a "fist fight."
What I was talking about though, actually happened a few miles from where I live, last week end. Two low-life crack heads broke into an older couple's house to rob them. They had guns. The old man's gun was "trigger locked" to make it SAFE, ffs. He finally got the trigger unlocked and wounded one of the robbers, but they got him in the head with two shots and then shot his wife, robbed them anyway. She is still alive, but he is dead.
That old man stood zero chance in a fight with them with just fists and his gun had a proper lock on it, making it practically useless.
Had he been able to react quickly, the cops would have found two dead robbers, instead.
Someone invading my house, will have made a fatal mistake.
The worst that would realistically happen (without it becoming national news bigtime) is the old guys would have been beaten up a little over here - guns would have had nothing to do with it. There is a case over here a few years back of someone who did shoot and kill someone invading their house - it was in the national media for about a month and the guy got done for manslaughter. Property over life is just ridiculous imo.
Unfortunately for the elderly couple, those thugs did not share your opinion.
Out in the country where that happened, it is a little unusual, but something similar happens at least twice every year nearby. Every other day or so a killing occurs in Indianapolis and it's not considered to be a violent city, by other standards.
There is a seven or eight year old local case still being studied by FBI psychology teams, where three teens (from well to do parents) got into a nice suburban house (presumably to steal prescription drugs) and were surprised to find people in the house. After gaining the upper hand, things continued to get worse to the point where, after several hours of arguing what to do and torturing the captives, they finally killed two people. These were high school kids.
The working theory is that after crossing a certain psycho/social boundary by invading property and capturing a person, criminals holding captives seem to escalate the level of violence far beyond anything they had ever intended. There are many cases that tie into this same behavior, where first timers (like those kids) out for some quick fun will actually perpetrate some truly gruesome and extreme violence upon their captives.
I do not intend to be captured by one of these criminals. You can tell me how peaceful the world could be all you want, but you simply do not understand.
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
I do fine with my fists. I was on a boxing team once. In fact, I still work out on a punching bag almost every day. Not much, but for a half hour or more if I feel the mood. I recommend it highly as a mild form of exercise. Getting my feet into it gets my heart rate up, too. Even at my age, I am quite confident in a "fist fight."
What I was talking about though, actually happened a few miles from where I live, last week end. Two low-life crack heads broke into an older couple's house to rob them. They had guns. The old man's gun was "trigger locked" to make it SAFE, ffs. He finally got the trigger unlocked and wounded one of the robbers, but they got him in the head with two shots and then shot his wife, robbed them anyway. She is still alive, but he is dead.
That old man stood zero chance in a fight with them with just fists and his gun had a proper lock on it, making it practically useless.
Had he been able to react quickly, the cops would have found two dead robbers, instead.
Someone invading my house, will have made a fatal mistake.
The worst that would realistically happen (without it becoming national news bigtime) is the old guys would have been beaten up a little over here - guns would have had nothing to do with it. There is a case over here a few years back of someone who did shoot and kill someone invading their house - it was in the national media for about a month and the guy got done for manslaughter. Property over life is just ridiculous imo.
Unfortunately for the elderly couple, those thugs did not share your opinion.
Out in the country where that happened, it is a little unusual, but something similar happens at least twice every year nearby. Every other day or so a killing occurs in Indianapolis and it's not considered to be a violent city, by other standards.
That sort of murder rate would never been tolerated over here, nor in Canada. The problem you have in the US is the culture behind the guns, way more than the guns themselves.
I do know one thing about our decision to ban handguns (note not guns in general - a 14 year old can get a license if they have a genuine reason and are adequately supervised.) is that we have not had a school shooting since. Even more surprisingly you might find - it was a conservative government who banned them.
There is a seven or eight year old local case still being studied by FBI psychology teams, where three teens (from well to do parents) got into a nice suburban house (presumably to steal prescription drugs) and were surprised to find people in the house. After gaining the upper hand, things continued to get worse to the point where, after several hours of arguing what to do and torturing the captives, they finally killed two people. These were high school kids.
Really does not surprise me - we have had cases over here of equally sick kids, not as frequently mind. The case that springs to mind is the Bulger one - over 10 years on its still bandied about. I know people whom if enabled sufficiently, could be pushed over that line. The difference between our society and your one is we don't enable it as much.
The working theory is that after crossing a certain psycho/social boundary by invading property and capturing a person, criminals holding captives seem to escalate the level of violence far beyond anything they had ever intended. There are many cases that tie into this same behavior, where first timers (like those kids) out for some quick fun will actually perpetrate some truly gruesome and extreme violence upon their captives.
Power does that to most people to an extent - which is essentially what it boils down to. The sick act is getting the power in the first place, then one leads to another as every boundary comes tumbling down.
I do not intend to be captured by one of these criminals. You can tell me how peaceful the world could be all you want, but you simply do not understand.
Move over here then. Statistically you are a lot safer.
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness :P We use fists here but guns and knives usually win
Knifes are useless against someone good with his fists so to speak. Nearly no-one has guns over here as well - most police officers are not allowed within miles of them even.
Different in Sweden. Every pig wears a 9 mm Sig Sauer with expanding bullets (banned in wars(!)), though Swedish cops are usually cowardly (yes, here the word is 100% right) sadists. They wear their guns instead of balls.
It would be more acceptable if the cops guns too were locked up here when there was no need for them, but that's no the case. It's rare but it happens that cops shoot people to death and go free for it in situations where an "ordinary" citizen would have gotten a hard punishment. ::)
-
That sort of murder rate would never been tolerated over here, nor in Canada. The problem you have in the US is the culture behind the guns, way more than the guns themselves.
The United States have a larger population than the UK and Canada together, in fact larger than whole Europe except for the Russian part, so it's no wonder there are many murders. But you have a point; the USA is a more violent place, so that part of the analysis is correct. So you admit that it's not the guns themselves that are a problem?
I do know one thing about our decision to ban handguns
Did the British people decide to ban pistols and revolvers? No. Your government did, without asking you. How democratic is that?
(note not guns in general - a 14 year old can get a license if they have a genuine reason and are adequately supervised.) is that we have not had a school shooting since. Even more surprisingly you might find - it was a conservative government who banned them.
Why would an unpunished citizen have to prove a "need" for a gun at all in a true democracy? And the license is for hunting or shooting in a fucking shooting club; you're not allowed to own and keep a pistol at your home. And it's not surprisingly that a conservative government (in British vocabulary) bans guns; they want that "privilege" for the state. How many school shootings were there in comparison to the amount of guns compared to traffic maims and kills in comparison to the amount of cars? With the same "reasoning", cars should have been banned already around 1920 or so, but the anti-gun propaganda is neither honest nor logical.
Really does not surprise me - we have had cases over here of equally sick kids, not as frequently mind. The case that springs to mind is the Bulger one - over 10 years on its still bandied about. I know people whom if enabled sufficiently, could be pushed over that line. The difference between our society and your one is we don't enable it as much.
In Japan a knife armed boy managed to kill 7 people. Time for knife ban?
Power does that to most people to an extent - which is essentially what it boils down to. The sick act is getting the power in the first place, then one leads to another as every boundary comes tumbling down.
Why do you think people become cops and soldiers? Because they're great humanists? Whenever someone is stronger, they abuse their power. The average cop or soldier is much more of a potential psychopath and power-abuser than the average citizen. But you have no problem with "the state" having the theoretical posibility to kill all of its citizens or enslave them...
The really sick act is making 99.99% of the people potential slaughter sheeps and have the stomach to call it a democracy. If you literally want true equality, no-one can be allowed having an advantage in physical force at all. All must have the same ability to arm themselves for defence.
But you don't get it, because you view the "state" as an all good parent of some kind and the citizens like actual children who can never be treated like free and independent individuals and never trusted to just be let alone on their own. But you trust the "states", that literally have the power to eradicate most of life on the whole planet within minutes...
Move over here then. Statistically you are a lot safer.
???
-
No HMO for me, thank you! In this world, you get what you pay for.
I pay for insurance and I don't have to wait with a bunch of random, infected fucks for treatment. I get to make an appointment.
In a decent nation, one which actually respects all its citizens, there are no problems with not paying for healthcare. National Insurance works just fine for me and 99% of Brits :)
I wouldn't call a nation decent that bans one hand guns for perfectly law-abiding citizens, but that's another story.
What do law abiding citizens need handguns for?
Very simply, sport and/or defense from citizens who do not abide the law.
Sport is done by the upper classes here = good reason to ban it.
Defense is fine - we tend to use fists instead over here.
Oh goodies another sign of my upper classiness :P We use fists here but guns and knives usually win
Knifes are useless against someone good with his fists so to speak. Nearly no-one has guns over here as well - most police officers are not allowed within miles of them even.
Different in Sweden. Every pig wears a 9 mm Sig Sauer with expanding bullets (banned in wars(!)), though Swedish cops are usually cowardly (yes, here the word is 100% right) sadists. They wear their guns instead of balls.
It would be more acceptable if the cops guns too were locked up here when there was no need for them, but that's no the case. It's rare but it happens that cops shoot people to death and go free for it in situations where an "ordinary" citizen would have gotten a hard punishment. ::)
Most police forces use those sort of rounds - the idea is to incapacitate a suspect in one shot. I don't see why they can't use a Taser instead
-
That sort of murder rate would never been tolerated over here, nor in Canada. The problem you have in the US is the culture behind the guns, way more than the guns themselves.
The United States have a larger population than the UK and Canada together, in fact larger than whole Europe except for the Russian part, so it's no wonder there are many murders. But you have a point; the USA is a more violent place, so that part of the analysis is correct. So you admit that it's not the guns themselves that are a problem?
I said rate as in per z amount of population. The guns are part of the problem - remove the guns, you kill the gun culture.
I do know one thing about our decision to ban handguns
Did the British people decide to ban pistols and revolvers? No. Your government did, without asking you. How democratic is that?
We elected the government which voted on it. No one has really complained since either.
(note not guns in general - a 14 year old can get a license if they have a genuine reason and are adequately supervised.) is that we have not had a school shooting since. Even more surprisingly you might find - it was a conservative government who banned them.
Why would an unpunished citizen have to prove a "need" for a gun at all in a true democracy? And the license is for hunting or shooting in a fucking shooting club; you're not allowed to own and keep a pistol at your home. And it's not surprisingly that a conservative government (in British vocabulary) bans guns; they want that "privilege" for the state. How many school shootings were there in comparison to the amount of guns compared to traffic maims and kills in comparison to the amount of cars? With the same "reasoning", cars should have been banned already around 1920 or so, but the anti-gun propaganda is neither honest nor logical.
You can keep a gun in your home over here - just you are not suppose to use it outside of the shooting range/ workplace. As for true democracy - is there such a thing?
Really does not surprise me - we have had cases over here of equally sick kids, not as frequently mind. The case that springs to mind is the Bulger one - over 10 years on its still bandied about. I know people whom if enabled sufficiently, could be pushed over that line. The difference between our society and your one is we don't enable it as much.
In Japan a knife armed boy managed to kill 7 people. Time for knife ban?
Less lethal than Cho Seung Hui and others. How could you enforce a knife ban - lets face it making a blade on the spot is not difficult.
Power does that to most people to an extent - which is essentially what it boils down to. The sick act is getting the power in the first place, then one leads to another as every boundary comes tumbling down.
Why do you think people become cops and soldiers? Because they're great humanists? Whenever someone is stronger, they abuse their power. The average cop or soldier is much more of a potential psychopath and power-abuser than the average citizen. But you have no problem with "the state" having the theoretical posibility to kill all of its citizens or enslave them...
Actually - I know people who are in the volunteer police force, they do it because they want to make a difference. Plus being an (unarmed) police officer is not exactly a huge source of power. The army would rebel if the government told them to go after the citizens in the manner you are suggesting.
The really sick act is making 99.99% of the people potential slaughter sheeps and have the stomach to call it a democracy. If you literally want true equality, no-one can be allowed having an advantage in physical force at all. All must have the same ability to arm themselves for defence.
I frankly don't care about whether or not we have a democracy. What I care about is whether or not we have the best people in charge of the state..
But you don't get it, because you view the "state" as an all good parent of some kind and the citizens like actual children who can never be treated like free and independent individuals and never trusted to just be let alone on their own. But you trust the "states", that literally have the power to eradicate most of life on the whole planet within minutes...
In which case, why do you need guns. Kinda pointless against an atom bomb.
Move over here then. Statistically you are a lot safer.
???
I was comparing UK to the US.
-
I said rate as in per z amount of population. The guns are part of the problem - remove the guns, you kill the gun culture.
You'll never completely remove anything that man once invented. Human nature doesn't work like that.
We elected the government which voted on it. No one has really complained since either.
Except for the gun owners, of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I
IMHO representative "democracy" is a fraud that was invented when you could no longer fool most people that the rulers got their power from God.
You can keep a gun in your home over here - just you are not suppose to use it outside of the shooting range/ workplace. As for true democracy - is there such a thing?
Direct democracy comes close, though I'd like to abolish modern "society" as a whole. It's a trap for human spirit as well as for physical freedom.
Actually - I know people who are in the volunteer police force, they do it because they want to make a difference. Plus being an (unarmed) police officer is not exactly a huge source of power. The army would rebel if the government told them to go after the citizens in the manner you are suggesting.
"Terrorist" laws? "Patriot" Act?
I frankly don't care about whether or not we have a democracy. What I care about is whether or not we have the best people in charge of the state..
With representative "democracy" you get neither. The fooled and scared people vote for the least evil, not the best good. An enlightened despot would be better in that case. "Democratic" Britain was first in Europe with licensing guns (1903), while the "dictators" in Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Ottoman Turkey let people arm themselves without infringements.
In which case, why do you need guns. Kinda pointless against an atom bomb.
So you should surrender forever because the wrong-doers can wipe you out? What a great moral principle. ::)
Most governments would hesitate to nuke their own country, if not for anything else than their own security.
-
By the way; it's an unspeakable abomination from the very beginning that a citizen isn't allowed to buy any gun s/he can possibly afford, considering that governments have nuclear bombs with a capacity of millions of tons of TNT, not to mention the radiation.
"In Provence the mountains are red,
and the lemon flower is white;
number C-87 the missile,
that awaits that place with all might."
-
I said rate as in per z amount of population. The guns are part of the problem - remove the guns, you kill the gun culture.
You'll never completely remove anything that man once invented. Human nature doesn't work like that.
No - but it certainly reduces the damage they cause.
We elected the government which voted on it. No one has really complained since either.
Except for the gun owners, of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I
My deepest sympathies - just listen to those accents!
IMHO representative "democracy" is a fraud that was invented when you could no longer fool most people that the rulers got their power from God.
The average moron has to be kept in line somehow. Unless we get rid of them of course - the world after all is overpopulated.
You can keep a gun in your home over here - just you are not suppose to use it outside of the shooting range/ workplace. As for true democracy - is there such a thing?
Direct democracy comes close, though I'd like to abolish modern "society" as a whole. It's a trap for human spirit as well as for physical freedom.
So would I - personally I feel imprisoned in it.
Actually - I know people who are in the volunteer police force, they do it because they want to make a difference. Plus being an (unarmed) police officer is not exactly a huge source of power. The army would rebel if the government told them to go after the citizens in the manner you are suggesting.
"Terrorist" laws? "Patriot" Act?
I frankly don't care about whether or not we have a democracy. What I care about is whether or not we have the best people in charge of the state..
With representative "democracy" you get neither. The fooled and scared people vote for the least evil, not the best good. An enlightened despot would be better in that case. "Democratic" Britain was first in Europe with licensing guns (1903), while the "dictators" in Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Ottoman Turkey let people arm themselves without infringements.
When did I say I wanted democracy - I would like the enlightened despot myself.
In which case, why do you need guns. Kinda pointless against an atom bomb.
So you should surrender forever because the wrong-doers can wipe you out? What a great moral principle. ::)
Most governments would hesitate to nuke their own country, if not for anything else than their own security.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
-
My deepest sympathies - just listen to those accents!
As far as I know most Brits don't speak the English that we learnt in school: Royal Court's and Lords' English.
The average moron has to be kept in line somehow. Unless we get rid of them of course - the world after all is overpopulated.
With the contemporary system the average moron with ruthlessnes, no principles at all and an ambition is most likely to come to power.
So would I - personally I feel imprisoned in it.
:thumbup:
When did I say I wanted democracy - I would like the enlightened despot myself.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
That goes from both sides.
-
IMHO representative "democracy" is a fraud that was invented when you could no longer fool most people that the rulers got their power from God.
:indeed: