EPTQuite the opposit, just because you think 2500 are enough and tell me to read a book doesn't make it any more true....
Neither you nor me know how this statistic was made and how valid it is.
How do foreigners view US politics? - Page 50
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
xylos
Switzerland61 Posts
Quite the opposit, just because you think 2500 are enough and tell me to read a book doesn't make it any more true.... Neither you nor me know how this statistic was made and how valid it is. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10776 Posts
Trying to denie this is pretty retarded. Needing a statistic to learn about it is pretty retarded. Saying statistic X is not representative whiteout any reasons is even more retareded. Now, what does that make you? Oh and btw: These "hippies" are for a large part, you probably guess it allready, STUDENTS. Which later will earn pretty good.. Which therefore are weatlhy, which vote green... asdf, your just a moron. <-- Out of here now, sorry. | ||
|
Lukeeze[zR]
Switzerland6838 Posts
| ||
|
Rflcrx
503 Posts
On November 17 2010 01:45 xylos wrote: Quite the opposit, just because you think 2500 are enough and tell me to read a book doesn't make it any more true.... Neither you nor me know how this statistic was made and how valid it is. Your quote basically says "I tried to undermine your statistics, it didn't work, I will try something else, like saying it has been forged". Basically thats conceding defeat, which is fine for me. | ||
|
xylos
Switzerland61 Posts
On November 17 2010 01:51 Velr wrote: <-- Out of here now, sorry. Nice, talking out of your ass, and as soon as your arguments get questioned your out, what a total retard you are :D And yes many POOR students vote green, they also vote left and like things which are to the disadvantage of the "rich". Can tell you that from my own experience, it's even worse in a technical uni. On November 17 2010 02:00 Rflcrx wrote: Your quote basically says "I tried to undermine your statistics, it didn't work, I will try something else, like saying it has been forged". Basically thats conceding defeat, which is fine for me. wrong, my quote said that neither of us know how that statistic was made, so we don't know how valuable it is. On November 17 2010 01:51 Lukeeze[zR] wrote: and yet just earlier you said " just read the new crime statistic" ? Theres a difference between a statistic where you only ask 2500 people and project it to the whole country and another statistic where you have the actual numbers and just count them.... User was warned for this post | ||
|
Rflcrx
503 Posts
So yeah, you are welcome. | ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On November 17 2010 01:34 xylos wrote: Yes I'm against banning guns from privates, and no I'm not a murderer, I just enjoy shooting since it's a part of our culture and tradition. And yes, a gun can drastically improve your safety when you are able to defend yourself and don't depend on the police. Banning guns is very contraproductive, since you only take them away from the law-abiding citizens, the criminals will always get guns, no matter if they are banned or not. No, banning guns makes it hard for people to have gun, I don't know how you can contest that. Crimes with guns are rather rare in Switzerland and when they occur it is because a dude shoot his wife because he had the gun at home, hence the reason for banning them. No, shooting is not at all part of our culture and tradition, you are pulling this off your ass, and even if it was, you have shooting clubs to do that, you don't have to have your gun at home. "And yes, a gun can drastically improve your safety when you are able to defend yourself and don't depend on the police." What is wrong with you seriously!!! You are not supposed to do the justice yourself, if you do that, then you are just another criminal. It is the role of the police. | ||
|
xylos
Switzerland61 Posts
On November 17 2010 02:24 Roggay wrote: No, banning guns makes it hard for people to have gun, I don't know how you can contest that. Crimes with guns are rather rare in Switzerland and when they occur it is because a dude shoot his wife because he had the gun at home, hence the reason for banning them. No, shooting is not at all part of our culture and tradition, you are pulling this off your ass, and even if it was, you have shooting clubs to do that, you don't have to have your gun at home. "And yes, a gun can drastically improve your safety when you are able to defend yourself and don't depend on the police." What is wrong with you seriously!!! You are not supposed to do the justice yourself, if you do that, then you are just another criminal. It is the role of the police. You say it yourself, gun crimes are very rare in Switzerland, tho we have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, nearly 50% of the population own guns. And you still try to say shooting is not part of our culture? So why do we have the most shooting clubs per capita in the world, why do we host the biggest shooting festivals in the world, the government even pays for the ammo at these events, denying that it's part of our culture is just wrong. And I wont do the justice myself but if some retard decides to break into my house at night I like to be prepared and it takes the police quite a while to arrive. | ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On November 17 2010 02:36 xylos wrote: You say it yourself, gun crimes are very rare in Switzerland, tho we have one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, nearly 50% of the population own guns. And you still try to say shooting is not part of our culture? So why do we have the most shooting clubs per capita in the world, why do we host the biggest shooting festivals in the world, the government even pays for the ammo at these events, denying that it's part of our culture is just wrong. And I wont do the justice myself but if some retard decides to break into my house at night I like to be prepared and it takes the police quite a while to arrive. Were the hell are you pulling those stats? I know almost nobody that possess a gun, I've never heard any of what you are saying. Switzerland has never been engaged in a conflict for ages and we have low crime rates, so no, guns are not part at all of our traditions and are not needed at all, except in shooting clubs. The fact that many people own guns is a direct consequence of the fact that people used to keep their military weapons at home (with no ammo if I recall correctly). And if some retard breaks into your house at night, you call the police / don't try to attack him. You DON'T shoot him damnit. People like you especially should be banned from having guns, you are a danger (far more than some thieves). | ||
|
xylos
Switzerland61 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership 3. the "eidgenössisches schützenfest" attracts 50'000 people every time, there is a shooting club in almost every small village, switzerland has a very strong shooting tradition, denying that is either trolling or totally retarded. 4. it takes the police close to 10 minutes to arrive at my house, do you want to spend 10 minutes with a burglar that is prob armed and willing to injure you? I don't, atleast not unarmed. 5. Yes many of the privately owned guns are the guns the ppl recieve in the military, but they decide to keep them and unse them for competitive shooting, (you can buy ammonition for the rifle at every gun store). But there are also hundred of thousands of other privately owned guns So yes, we have a very strong shooting/hunting tradition. "raditionally, in Switzerland a great umber of firearms are in private hands. Among these are rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic rifles, pistols and revolvers. The issue of gun ownership is closely linked to the centuries-ol Swiss system and tradition of national defense. This explains why gun ownership is far less restricted in Switzerland than in the other European countries." "Every Swiss municipality has a rifle or pistol range, where members of the army train on a compulsory or volunteer basis ..These ranges are open to all members of shooting associations. Many Swiss, from age 16 to very old veterans, train there not only in marksmanship, but also in safe and responsible handling of firearms. " http://www.gunownersofvermont.org/swiss_army.html | ||
|
theshanthan
4 Posts
| ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + and | ||
|
Mizzet
Singapore47 Posts
With that in mind I am, personally, all for the banning of firearms. However you run into a troublesome situation trying to ban firearms after they have already been made easily accessible, since criminals will obviously not turn their weapons in. It's the kind of thing you either need to run with for a long time or start off with. | ||
|
yema1
Iceland101 Posts
On November 05 2010 08:40 Biff The Understudy wrote: That's funny I have an other version. Your country got into most hardcore of financial ultra liberalism, building its whole economy on speculation and banking without having any kind of real industry or non-virtual economic activity. Theses neo-viking idiots have just ruined your people. Now what you are saying is basically that you support the people who put you in the shit because supporting the other ones is like putting oil on the fire. What's your solution? To start one more time to try to become the paradise of every big financial hedge fund and speculative bank? I'll tell you why everything came crashing. 1) A lot of people took loans for houses (only 1% interest rate) in euros. When the isk krona came crashing they couldn't pay the loan because it doubled. That's their fault for taking huge risks with their money. This became the 'status quo' because so many people did this. (sub-prime mortgages, lol.) 2) The Federal Reserve printed money and raised the interest rates from 1% to 5.5%. That meant that a lot of people couldn't pay their loans back thus becoming bankrupt. 3) The British government used Terrorist laws against Iceland which resulted in the Krona crashing, thanks Britain. Somehow people take it for granted that the banks should be insured by the state, but that results in moral hazards. The banks act more recklessly because they know they'll be bailed out. We would of hit depression either way but the banking system wouldn't have completely come down burning if it weren't for those things. On top of that we elected an extremely Socialist government which is anti-business in every way imaginable. We need to lower the deficit and cut back on taxes and duties so that people will gain confidence to actually do any investments. Most Icelanders agree that this needs to be done, as can be seen in polls which show the liberal-conservative party as the biggest party in Iceland. | ||
|
xylos
Switzerland61 Posts
On November 17 2010 07:33 Mizzet wrote: Just curious, are there any actual statistics showing how many times an attempted robbery/burglary/etc was successfully repelled with personal firearms? I can understand the rationale behind being able to defend yourself with firearms, but I just don't see it playing out so conveniently all the time. With that in mind I am, personally, all for the banning of firearms. However you run into a troublesome situation trying to ban firearms after they have already been made easily accessible, since criminals will obviously not turn their weapons in. It's the kind of thing you either need to run with for a long time or start off with. Well just look at the US, there alot of places where the crime rate went crazy after they forced stricter gun laws, look at the UK(lol), look at my country, one of the highest guzn ownership rates and close to no gun crime/abuse. you seem to forget, that it's also a really big deterrent, if a burglar knows that 50% of the households have guns, he may think twice about whether its worth getting shot for some money or not... And like I said, criminals will always get guns, no matter if they are banned or not. | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
On November 17 2010 07:33 Mizzet wrote: Just curious, are there any actual statistics xylos wrote: Well just look at the US, there alot of places where the crime rate went crazy after they forced stricter gun laws, look at the UK(lol), look at my country, one of the highest guzn ownership rates and close to no gun crime/abuse. The amount of actual statistics in your post is astounding, xylos. Wow. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On November 17 2010 02:24 Roggay wrote: No, banning guns makes it hard for people to have gun, I don't know how you can contest that. Crimes with guns are rather rare in Switzerland and when they occur it is because a dude shoot his wife because he had the gun at home, hence the reason for banning them. No, shooting is not at all part of our culture and tradition, you are pulling this off your ass, and even if it was, you have shooting clubs to do that, you don't have to have your gun at home. "And yes, a gun can drastically improve your safety when you are able to defend yourself and don't depend on the police." What is wrong with you seriously!!! You are not supposed to do the justice yourself, if you do that, then you are just another criminal. It is the role of the police. defending urself is legal u know... actually it is advised... | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10776 Posts
In the best case he will wait with you there until the police arrives. In the worst case he also has a gun and one gets killed. In between lie various injuries of various degrees for one of the 2 sides. I don't see ANY reason to own a gun with ammo in Switzerland. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
First of all, many Europeans have this view that US politicians and their created bueracracy play a small role. That US is basically a country where business runs everything. Of course, this is not true as there is a reason for why the Tea Party movement gained so much momentum. Americans in general are skeptical towards government and take pride in self-reliance. In my book, that makes its population one of the healthiest in the world. Let me divert into a brief comparison to the Swedish mindset. Yesterday there was a debate in the riksdag on the sick-leave insurance system. A social democrat complained that people whose insurance is taken away due to there being a limit on the amount of payed days off would have to rely on his/her spouse or family or charity. This was portrayed as unworthy will I think the mindset in the US would be that it would be quite normal to ask your family for financial help in such a situation. On the other hand, the US system is a very bad 2 party system. Even if americans wanted to vote down government expansion and spending they haven't had anyone to turn to ever since Reagan. And the opinions in the US are much more diverse than what can adequately be represented in 2 parties. If I lived in the US I probably wouldn't vote. Democrats display tendencies of protectionism and will raise taxes and spend more. Republicans seem to want to lower taxes and spend more... And of course there is the notorious right wing religious nuts. Yes nuts, because believing in the bible as it is written is nuts; sorry, no compromises. And voting for another party is just a wasted vote anyway. Beyond that, I think corruption is wide-spread. Though of course, everything is relative... But at least in comparison to Scandinavian countries it's corrupt. Moving away from those issues the campaigns and the quality of the discussions are terrible. From an outsider's point of view, the fixation on persona, the dirty tricks and the mindnumbing speeches followed by standard applause and cheers are absurd. The intellectual level seems to be adjusted for 12 year olds. Comparing to Sweden, we're much more down to earth. You would never see Swedish people rally behind an individual the way americans rallied behind Obama. Swedish is people are more focused on the organizations and specific issues. I think neither US nor Sweden nor most other countries focus on ideology any more. It's all just pragmatism. In conclusion, I think we're both bad, but you're worse. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
On November 17 2010 20:13 Velr wrote: Defending is not the same as shooting the guy that is breaking into your house. In the best case he will wait with you there until the police arrives. In the worst case he also has a gun and one gets killed. In between lie various injuries of various degrees for one of the 2 side. I don't see ANY reason to own a gun with ammo in Switzerland. Well, gun control isn't that easy an issue really. For the state to be justified to forbid you from something it should be the case that you, without the prohibition, would end up causing harm to another individual. If there's no reason to own a gun, then the probability of gun related accidents/crimes etc. is probably very low. So then, there should be no reason for banning them either. On the other hand, because it is such a powerful tool, it probably should be tightly regulated. | ||
| ||
