Not closed? So I'm gonna be a little dry. What makes you think Switzerland would allow you to immigrate? They're having one of the most restrictive immigration acts on earth. For Switzerland you are the alien. You should consider either Serbia or Yemen, if you really choose to leave the States. Distribution of firearms here is higher than in Switzerland. It's not as bad as all that.
I want to address this part briefly, because it has me scratching my head. Of all things, blaming NATO for warmongering is strange, because they have become quite toothless over the years. They aren't blasting away at Putin's invading forces in Ukraine or Syria. And those refugees came about because radical Islam has been waging a tacit war with the rest of the planet since the 70s, and it is thanks to lots of money from rich Saudis and others in the Middle East, primarily Iran, that the war has become bloody. And rather than pony up a hefty but more reasonable fund for refugee camps - because no Middle Eastern nation wants ISIS or Al Quaeda warriors in their midst, now western governments are being shamed into allowing these groups into their countries by the tens of thousands, and there are going to be more "Parises" coming from this wrong headed solution. Now on Brexit and all, I have sympathy for the souls who threw their tantrum and left the EU. It is definitely not cool having once been a global empire to find yourself on a leash to a bunch of aristocrats in The Hague often making bizarre decisions which you have little or no say in. Certainly the citizens don't. There are good politicians in all these countries who find themselves handcuffed by these "well meaning" administrators and forced to live with decisions they have no part in making. If the situation was more like the one in Switzerland, that would be one thing, but the citizens of Europe are being taken for a ride by these sometimes faceless nameless people, and oftentimes having no say in what goes on is understandably going to cause hurt feelings and frustrations, especially when they have to pay for it all. I'm not a "rich hater," but there are definitely a few very powerful individuals, George Soros and others, who are pulling strings, and it's not fun being a puppet. I see no good solution to this, because these bureaucrats in the EU don't seem interested in letting their citizens in on the decisions being made "for their own good," and giving them SOME small say would go a long way to avoiding disruptions like Brexit. And I'm afraid that if Hillary becomes our US President, it's going to get even worse. I wish we could all just find simple solutions to all our problems, but the webs of influence and deceit are just too many and too insidious. My, what a cheerful post.
Not quite, they can introduce legilative initiatives which then pass through the regular legislative process, involving both the Bundesrat and Ständerat. Which combined consist of 246 members for a demos of 8,2 million, which makes it more representatives per citizen than in most other countries. Yea, fuck enlightenment and human rights, what have they ever done for me. What are these bizarre decisions that are imposed upon people and politicians, any examples? Again, scapegoatism, none of these claims, mostly made in the UK (almost as if EU laws are only imposed upon the UK but not the rest of the member states), are factually true. I am quite looking forward to finding out who the politicians in the UK will blame from thereon in, they can't blame the EU for their own fuckups anymore.
As a British citizen who voted to remain, I'm absolutely appalled by the outcome of the referendum, as are many, many people in this country - remember 48% did not vote to leave. I think it's a big, big mistake that we will come to regret.
The difference is that back then it was puzzle of coalitions working against each other. Now there is the attempt to get them all under one roof. I'm not going to say that the EU couldn't be more democratic, or that there is not some serious need for reform. But whatever the people of the right are offering is not pointing into that direction at all, all that energy is wasted on undermining this project. There answer is as always easy ... jump ship. They are always giving easy answers to complicated questions, that's why some people seem to love them so much. Anyway, lots of people miss the point that the EU is a work in progress, nothing like that has been really tried before ... not with so many nations,with so many languages and cultural differences. So it is almost natural that there is problems that need to be solved, and that there is a crisis every now and then. One should not forget how big this project actually is ... how many interests, meanings, prejudices are colliding while trying to form a union.
Any shot aiming only at the Brexit, necessarily must fall short, for the dynamic behind leading to all this is much more complex and has a span of over half a century. This will be my only comment on the issue in this forum, I use to do my political debate in another place. FIAT "money". Fractional reserve banking. State minting monopole. A mislabeled modern democracy that has turned into a mix of two of the three forms the ancient Greek knew as tyranny: oligarchy and ochlocracy. TNT is a harmless plumpudding, compared to this mixture^. Its strong enough to tear the world into pieces.And it does - in slow motion so that the dynamic and movement still escape many people's eyes. BTW: in ancient Greece, democracy in principle was understood to be a FEUDAL, elitist form of government. And just 5-15% of the population of a Polis - a big city, a city state - had qualified access to decision-forming assemblies: the free, rich males from wealthy families. So much for "democracy"! What we call that today, has nothing to do with it, not by a huge margin. And who wants to get reminded today that even the United States were not founded as a "democracy", but as an aristocratic republic, and the founding fathers explicitly warning against the socialism-in-disguise that democracy in modern understanding really is...? Nobody has a right to complain, nobody is an innocent victim here, except maybe the very young children. We all live with our hands in the pockets of the others. We all are accomplices in crime. We get what we deserve. And the more we dream of socialism, the greater our willingness to end up in dictatorship, and being held in check by secret police and prison cells. Because sooner or later the impotence of socialism dawns on even the dumbest backbenchers, and then socialism can only be enforced by using brute force against the unwilling people. Germany has had this twice within just some 80 years - and yet people are already willing again to embrace it a third time. Socialism never can work and thus never has worked, because it ignores the nature of man and dreams and acts strictly against it. But reality does not bow to ideology. The laws of the market cannot be bypassed - you can delay the consequences at the price of mounting costs, but you cannot avoid them forever. One is not sovereign when one needs others to pay one's own bills. One gets problems if one consumes reserves but does not replace them. One spells disaster if one spends more than one can afford. Freedom, the "pursuit of happiness" - both do not mean that the world owe to you and that you have claim for getting pleased by others, the state, the world. It means that you are free to follow your goals and to try realising them as best as you can. But the job - has to be done not by the others, but by you. "You can avoid reality. But you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Today, there is a lot of talking about being "social". Social responsibility, social aid, social laws, social wellfare, social here, social there. What always is meant by this is: "Hey you! You must pay my bill." "Social market economy" in reality means planned economy. "Socialist" is a way to mean "communist" without wanting to offer a flank for criticism when saying "communist". Solidarity cannot be commanded or blackmailed or enforced. Solidarity comes by own initiative, by own reason and insight - and it gets refused by own decision and own insight. Blackmailed solidarity is no solidarity, but blackmailing. Enforced solidarity is no solidarity, but force. Commanded solidarity is no solidarity, but submission, obedience, surrender. EUcrats and EU-vasalls can hope until the world ends that the fairy queen will clean the mess their good hearts and well-meaningness has created - but it will not happen, not for free and not for a fee. "Schulden sind vorgezogener Konsum, der in der Zukunft nicht mehr stattfindet." One thing is certain. The more time gets bought, the less time there is for those coming after us. We live at their cost, we consume wealth that they cannot make use of anymore. And no, its not evil, wicked capitalism or free market. Aim your criticism at the right target, aim it at monopolism. With big state being the biggest, meanest, most brutal and unscrupulous monopolist of all. "States are the coldest of all monsters." And one word on human rights, since these get so often abused to promote ever more socialism. Human rights mean nothing if you cannot formulate them in form of possession rights. You have the right of free speech, yes. But that does not give you the right to blast into somebody'S house and hold a political speech in his living room. Instead, you go to a place that have leased for the evening, and then hold your assembly. You owe the place for a certain time, that is. That is free speech. You get the idea. There are only three human rights that I accept as such. Any further claims have to base on these, obeying the principles of reason and logic. 1. The right of man to possess his own body as his and nobody else's property. 2. The right to pick what he finds in the world and that nobody else has risen claim for, and make it his own possession by transforming it through the process of labour into something different: it then is his and nobody can make claim for it anymore. 3. The right that man is left alone by his likes if that is what man wants: not to deal with others and not being subjugated to serve their interest. - Today, there is an inflation of "human rights". The human right for banking account (the lack of securities need to be paid for by others). The human right for internet access. The human right to arbitrarily chose your gender will form a catalogue of six dozen entries, growing. As long as we waste our time, resources and concentration for running this infantile, childish poopoo show that we are so proud of here in Europe, we will lose more and more parts of our future. The future could have been ours, Europe's. But all mistakes already have been done. We threw it mindlessly away, not caring, for we thought for us there would be no limits. Nonsense. Nothing is limitless within a physically limited system. We let people speak and decide in our names whom we better should not have allowed this, we should have hanged them into the trees instead, leaving them for the birds. We make an establisher of organised tax fraud and la confessing liar, who is shameless enough to not even hide that treaties and laws signed yesterday already today mean nothign to him anymore - Jean Claude Juncker - be elected as EU president, by a gremium of in principle conspirationists, behind locked doors, under explicit ignoring and locking-out of the 500 million people theser elitists arogantly claim to speak for and to represent. I would say we get what we deserve, since these mobster would be nopthjing if we would not legitimise them time and again, while even knolwing in advance that they are lying to us. We get led into serfdom, and economic impoverishment - and we even lick the boot that kicks us and kiss the hand that whips us and plunders our pockets. We are servile. And we believe in a strong state. And have demands over demands. Or in short: we are stupid and naive to the max. And accept to be held like cattle in a tax-producing industrial cattle farming. We have given away the future of our children and children's children. THEY will pay the price for our ignorance and self-glorification - not just in wealth that they will not have, but also with the lack in freedoms, both in civil rights and in opportunities that they will suffer from. The British decision is one with huge risks, but also is a great opportunity. But I fear they will just intentionally walk into the same traps like before. If you have read the news today, you see that they already have started. We do not need a polticla union. We do not need a currency union. Both cause many bads, and no goods. A free market zone, free trade, right of free travel - and the rest of your megalomaniac fantasies and claims for ever more powers, dear damn EU, you please keep for yourself and shove it deep into you know where.
Violent crime is at a 50 year low in the u.s. You can verify this with fbi statistics. Again your chances of being murdered with a firearm are very low. Even the wiki page you linked talks about how most of the gun violence is concentrated in gang ridden poor areas. Poverty is the cause of this violence, not a firearm. The drug war that incarcerates so many for non-violent crimes is the cause of this violence. Poor education is the cause of this violence. Lack of jobs and opportunity is the cause of this violence. Not just the presence of a firearm. Millions of americans own firearms and never shoot or harm anyone. 12,000 firearms murders in a country with 318 million people and millions of firearms.
Wouldn't have needed to type all those other words, this says it all... I honestly hope you never get in a life situation were you'd be dependant on this fascistic socialist regime you despise so much. But why make it so much easier than it'd need to be? Why does a civilian need a firearm?
Everyone has an inalienable right to self defense. A firearm allows a small weak old woman the ability to fend off a much larger aggressor. People should have to the right to defend themselves from burglary, robbery, car jackings, rape, murder, etc. Calling the police is no good if you are dead when they get there. Europeans and Americans debating gun laws is kind of an exercise in futility I suppose I live in Texas. This year we reached 1 million people in our state with a license to carry a handgun. You have to take a class, pay fees, get a federal background check from the fbi, submit fingerprints, photos and carry an i.d. card at all times. Of course there are laws regarding how you can carry and where etc. Plus you have to pass another federal background check to buy a firearm in a store. When a gang member goes to get a gun, I doubt he goes through all of that trouble.
I pay what I owe somebody. Not more, not less. Anything I decide to do beyond that (you would be surprised if you knew me better), must remain to be my own free decision. Not yours. Not that of political parties. Nobody's. MINE, and mine alone. You want money being spent on something? Okay, use your own, ask others to join, hold a donation event - but dont go around and steal and plunder. Because there are bad boys and sometimes tyrannical states stronger than you, and man invented weapons to compensate for physical deficits or weaknesses when the prey (hunting) or attacker was stronger. One does not carry a weapon because one is afraid. One carries a weapon so that one does not need to be afraid. Gun laws btw do nothing to reduce the real problem that there is: illegally circulating weapons, armed gangs and criminals, and black market. You only regulate obedient, honest citizens, but these to 99,99%. Roar and jump like a tiger - land like a bedside rug!
I really think this thread needs to be closed before our wildly different political views, about which many of us are very passionate, damage our friendly community and undermine the respect we all have for each other
Eh debate is good, it's only if insults and name calling come into the equation that it is unhealthy. I'm sure it will be locked soon enough lol.
In which case, in what version of reality is 12000 firearms murders per year anything but a complete catastrophe? Also, to have Nigel Farrage's beaming but vacuous face plastered all over the UK news gloating about "his" victory, followed immediately by him saying this "350 million per week" saving was actually a "mistake" boils my p!ss. No Nigel, what you said wasn't a mistake, it was a *lie*. It's a different thing
More people die in auto accidents, from medical malpractice, smoking, obesity and many other things every year. The point is if we truly cared about reducing murder, we would work on the real causes. Improving education, reducing penalties for non-violent crimes that leads young kids into a cycle of incarceration. Try to reduce poverty. Try to improve mental health services. End the drug war. So many things could be done to reduce these numbers. But no politician will do it. It is easier to blame a gun and get votes for it. 2014 stats for the U.S. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm Heart disease: 614,348 • Cancer: 591,699 • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101 • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053 • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103 • Alzheimer's disease: 93,541 • Diabetes: 76,488 • Influenza and pneumonia: 55,227 • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,146 • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 42,773 Maybe we should be asking why are so many people killing themselves in many countries around the world?
Probably the same in which 1.2 million traffic kills per anno (WHO, 2010) are seen as no big deal. Okay, looks I am overdue already. I'm out of here.
W-the-absolute-fck? 12000 per year in a country of 318 million, while in the UK it's like 50 a year in a country of 65 million. Why do traffic deaths matter here? It honestly don't make any sense to me, but we're off topic here and we'll just end up calling each other names Also Dirtyrice, you keep editing your posts - it now talks about other stuff, when you first posted it finished with "lol". Which seems a pretty weird way to look at all this
And what makes you so sure this small weak female will stand any greater chance of fending off an aggressor if she's carrying a gun around? Have you ever been attacked, and if so how does an aggrssor act usually? Does he stand in front of you, John Wayne style, making his claim and then waiting for you to pull your gun, or does he attack from the shadows, from behind, from a position you don't expect to be attacked from? And what does the aggressor attack with, a gun? How did he get that, wouldn't it be much more difficult for baddies to obtain a firearm if there were no guns in civic circulation? It just seems like many people overestimate their fighting/defending abilities. You should have the right to defend yourself, yes, but with adequate means. If somebody tries to steal from you, that gives you the right to kill that person? You can't deny the facts, and those are that almost no country allows for civil firearm ownership. Are any more people burgled, robbed, car jacked, raped, murdered etc. in those countries? Or does statistics actually show that these crimes are lower in those non-armed countries? What about Australia where they banned civil firearms in 1996, has the country become a fascist state? Have gun crimes reduced and almost no mass shootings taken place since then?
Do you think a criminal would rather attack an armed person or an unarmed person? If you want to see examples of people defending themselves against an aggressor with a firearm, search for it on youtube. Not every attacker is going to have a firearm. And in many cases even if they do, people still defend themselves against the attacker. I agree with you that many people over estimate their abilities though. But I think you also assume that just because someone carries a firearm for self defense, they think they are a cowboy or want to shoot someone. That couldn't be further from the truth. Lots of people taking training classes and will never shoot anyone in their lifetime. A firearm isn't a guarantee just like a fire extinguisher isn't. But i'd still rather have one lol. The rates of murders with a firearm are lower in countries with less firearms, naturally. But the rate of robberies, burglaries, muggins etc, are not necessarily lower in countries without legal firearms. Americans are obviously more violent than many modernized countries. Even if you took all of the guns away, I doubt you'd see a big drop in murders because none of the issues that cause them are addressed. Again firearm murders are higher here but they have also dropped continually over the last 50 years. Lots of poor countries make all guns illegal for civilians and still have high murder rates. The poverty is more of a problem than the guns. And I never said I would shoot someone for stealing, don't put words in my mouth. But many times robberies turn into murders. And mr. belowski, i'm not about to call you any names lol. The point is if you cared about stopping senseless deaths so much, you'd care more about banning cars and smoking more than you do banning firearms. How many people do you think get blown up around the world every day. 12,000 is a drop in the bucket, doesn't mean their deaths don't mean anything or that I wish such a fate on anyone. I would love to see actual reforms in the u.s. that would lead to lower murder rates. Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the country and some of the strictest gun laws. Poverty, poor mental health services and incarceration for drug crimes are the problem, whether people want to deny it or not. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=clerk+shoots
I looked up something, did not find what I was looking for, but was finding something equivalent. Its in German language only and shows some statistics released by US congress that shed some other light on things than you simplify them to be like, Christian. Give those numbers and their trend over the past 20+ years some thinking. Its from summer last year. More weapons - but less murder. And two thirds of incidents, are suicides. Also you need to substract the case when police clashed with armed gangster and shot them dead. Its not that simple as you maybe assume, Christian. http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/article143346240/Immer-mehr-Waffen-immer-weniger-Morde.html
Really not trying to be nitpicky, but what else did you imply with this? You defend gun ownership with the need for personal protection from theft. Or do you mean that the granny shooting at the burglar is such a good shot that she will be able to down the aggressor without killing him? Then I might ask what gives you the right to physically harm a person that *only* steals from you or trespasses on your land? And the conclusion from this assumption is that if everybody is armed nobody gets mugged? How does the perpetrator know whether the victim is armed or not? But even in your country where a criminal has to at least take the possibility of his victim being armed into consideration, these crimes still happen and they happen more often (in total numbers) than in countries without armed civilians. This is the main flaw in both your logics because this is not the equation I'm making. I am not saying that the percentage of such crimes will drop if you ban guns, people will always find ways to kill, rob, harm each other. What I'm saying is that there's no indication that the proportion of such crimes would rise if you did ban guns, so why keep them if they don't actually improve the situation? Because on the other hand it would make mass shootings less likely. Hence this argument of "we need guns to protect ourselves from crimes", as used by dirtyrice, has no foundation I could agree on. I know it's no use to discuss this, I won't convince you of any other position than the one you've grown accustomed to. It's just this one thing that I don't get, why have guns in everybodys hands if it apparently doesn't have a positive influence on crime rates, but does have a negative influence on things such as massacres or gang crime?