On 29/07/2011 11:04 a.m., lelandj wrote: > On 07/29/2011 08:31 AM, John Harvey wrote: >> I seem to recall something about how the communists seized peoples guns as a >> part of their strategy, just prior to killing them by the millions, as did >> Hitler. You can have mine, when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers! >> >> John Harvey > Correct. When a communist regime come to power within a country, about > 30% of the countries population will be exterminated in a societal > re-engineering, but I think this would hold true whenever any extremist > group raises to power, whether they be on the right, like Religious > Righter extremist or Islamic extremist, or are coming from the from left > wing extremist groups. > > http://www.sovietstory.com/about-the-film/flash-trailer/ > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYWeynMDcBU&feature=player_detailpage > > Regards, > > LelandJ > >
Lets see... Problem is I somehow agree with you. People should have the right to "have" guns (not sure about "carrying"). Problem is we know 95% of people are stupid, so that must be considered. OTOH a car is also a weapon, it kills lots of people yearly and yet we have no problems with people having cars. Your arguments OTOH are really poor. First, a communist regime does not exterminate 30% of the population. Usually that is accomplished by right wing extremist regimes. Next, when a group seizes the power of the state they don't really have the need to fool you into giving up your arms. They have all the powers of the state, police, armed forces, etc. And these forces will usually do what the governing faction asks them to do. And if you resist you will be killed in a great tv show and presented as a gun crazy murderer of innocent policemen, you people in USA have had plenty of that. So, disregarding your arguments, I'd agree that people should have the right to own guns. I would however require obligatory gun tuition and exams which should be required every, say, 5 years. And, as we do with cars, would penalize up to the prohibition of owning guns those idiots who use them in inappropriate ways. As a side note I would like to say that I don't agree with police forces carrying guns. It has been proved time and again that police may perform 90% of their work without them, and in today's communication world they may easily and quickly request for armed help whenever necessary. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of geoff >> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:09 AM >> To: 'ProFox Email List' >> Subject: RE: [OT] Unarmed Police >> >> Your argument is exactly what I expected. The same argument was used when an >> Australian crazy killed 35 people some 15 years ago. If the populace had had >> guns the death toll would have been 1/10 what it was. The flipside is that >> the same day as the Norwegian crazy did his think an american family got >> into an argument at an ice rink. Result: 7 dead from gunshots. In Australia >> (or England) the result would have been black eyes and wounded pride. And >> that situation is played out thousands of times every year. USA gun death >> toll: 50,000. Australia (1/16th the population): 90. >> >> The argument is not only simply but overwhelming. And I am just as sure you >> do not accept it - just like the rest of your country. So while you bemoan >> (rightly) the deaths of 4000 soldiers over the last 8 years, you say nothing >> of the 400,000 dead at home from guns. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >> Of Michael Madigan >> Sent: Friday, 29 July 2011 6:18 PM >> To: ProFox Email List >> Subject: Re: [OT] Unarmed Police >> >> So a man man comes onto an island and has a shooting spree for 90 minutes >> and nobody has a gun to shoot him. I guess those 90 people were safer >> without owning a gun. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Paul Hill<[email protected]> >> To: ProFox Email List<[email protected]> >> Cc: >> Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:25 AM >> Subject: Re: [OT] Unarmed Police >> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Michael Madigan<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Why would you want unarmed police when the terrorists are armed to the >> teeth? >> >> Because a gun is no use against a bomb. >> Because sometimes police shoot innocent people. >> Because armed police promote encourage armed criminals. >> >> But, then again I live in a country where the populous don't have a >> fanatical obsession with firearms. >> >> Total firearm-related death rate per 100,000 per year: >> United States 15.22 >> England/Wales 0.46 >> >> (from wikipedia, so usual caveats apply) >> >> -- >> Paul >> _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
