Weapons, poll

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If the Russian would like to attack successfully others countries they could do it with 90% of countries in the world but they don't do so because they are not a threat for them.

I'm sure that's the narrative of the jingoistic Russian propaganda that you obviously consume, but the difficulties the Russian army is facing in Ukraine have shown that to be the hollow chest-thumping that it is.

By the way, are you even aware that there is already a history of Russia invading Finland?

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

By the way, are you even aware that there is already a history of Russia invading Finland?

There is history of anglo saxon invading US as well, we are in 2022.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If the Russian would like to attack successfully others countries they could do it with 90% of countries in the world but they don't do so because they are not a threat for them.

Russia can't even get to 90% of the countries in the world!

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If the Russian would like to attack successfully others countries they could do it with 90% of countries in the world but they don't do so because they are not a threat for them.

What the **** are you talking about? They're ******* the neighbor's dog in Ukraine. The dumb bastards can't even get one war right.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If the Russian would like to attack successfully others countries they could do it with 90% of countries in the world but they don't do so because they are not a threat for them.

I think Russia's record in Ukraine shows the vacuity of this statement.

[JoeMorgue]

*A dozen people tell Gaeten he's wrong in neutered, toothless, terms for 3,586th time.*

[The Man]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

*A dozen people tell Gaeten he's wrong in neutered, toothless, terms for 3,586th time.*

The unneutered fangs out terms have been likewise used over the years to the very same lack of acknowledgment.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

*A dozen people tell Gaeten he's wrong in neutered, toothless, terms for 3,586th time.*

We never know what creasy people have in their mind, if they have arms it makes it easy to kill people.

[Gaetan]

Trudeau and Biden want to stop the sale of weapons to protect the population, which is a good thing except that these hypocrites are the biggest arms sellers in the world. They even give billions in weapons to Ukraine for free. With a world treaty to abolish arm and army it would make a world much safer. We can recycle soldier in humanitary workers.

[xjx388]

It is patently uncivil to accuse each other of being responsible for the killing of the children in Uvalde. I've moved all that crap to AAH and any further such incivility will be infracted.

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:xjx388

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

We never know what creasy people have in their mind, if they have arms it makes it easy to kill people.

Precisely why some arms are needed to protect against "creasy people".

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Trudeau and Biden want to stop the sale of weapons to protect the population, which is a good thing except that these hypocrites are the biggest arms sellers in the world. They even give billions in weapons to Ukraine for free. With a world treaty to abolish arm and army it would make a world much safer. We can recycle soldier in humanitary workers.

Actually, IIRC it was just handguns for Trudeau and assault weapons for Biden.

Talk to some Native Americans sometime about how effective treaties are at keeping people safe.

What if your 'recycled' soldiers don't want to be "humanitary workers"?

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

Precisely why some arms are needed to protect against "creasy people".

If you have a country where arms are available easily you will just have more people killed.

In contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation. For example, in July 2021, Australia implemented a permanent gun amnesty program, in which unregistered firearms could be anonymously surrendered at police stations.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ths-by-country

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If you have a country where arms are available easily you will just have more people killed.

In contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation. For example, in July 2021, Australia implemented a permanent gun amnesty program, in which unregistered firearms could be anonymously surrendered at police stations.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ths-by-country

And precisely why I said "Precisely why some arms are needed to protect against "creasy people". Nowhere did I assert that arms should be "available easily".

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation.

Indeed. They had practicable plans with general public support and they implemented them.

You could contrast this with the US or South American nations, but you could also contrast it with the idea of banning all weapons. That utopian notion is not in any way a plan. It reeks of having not been thought through for a nanosecond. It's so obviously impractical it would not have public support, and there is no hint of how you would implement it.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

And precisely why I said "Precisely why some arms are needed to protect against "creasy people". Nowhere did I assert that arms should be "available easily".

Creasy people need cure not to be killed. The only way to protect the people is to shut down the arm industries.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Creasy people need cure not to be killed. The only way to protect the people is to shut down the arm industries.

No one asserted "Creasy people" should be killed and I again implore you to get out in the real world if you think "The only way to protect the people is to shut down the arm industries". Heck, just by your previous post you are clearly aware of all kinds of approaches that have actually been implemented.

What if "Creasy people" don't want a cure? How about you, are you seeking professional help for your asserted condition or do you still perceive it as some extra sensory benefit?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

The only way to protect the people is to shut down the arm industries.

And that's your whole plan, is it? Shut down the arms industries and everyone is safe. Just like that.

Can you foresee any chance of all the millions of existing weapons also being potentially dangerous? Do you have any plan to cope with non-cooperation, or with cheating? What do you do if one country only pretends to disarm?

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

And that's your whole plan, is it? Shut down the arms industries and everyone is safe. Just like that.

Can you foresee any chance of all the millions of existing weapons also being potentially dangerous? Do you have any plan to cope with non-cooperation, or with cheating? What do you do if one country only pretends to disarm?

Off course to live in a safer country you have to pick up arms already in the population.

[JoeMorgue]

*In accordance with the MA a dozen people reach the hard ceiling of explaining to Gaetan why he is wrong again, a process already shown to not work."

[The Man]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

*In accordance with the MA a dozen people reach the hard ceiling of explaining to Gaetan why he is wrong again, a process already shown to not work."

Well technically he's backed off the no arms = no threat assertion and is now basically just going with 'less arms is safer'. So that process worked.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Off course to live in a safer country you have to pick up arms already in the population.

How does picking "up arms already in the population" make anything safer for those having the 'picking' done to them and those doing the 'picking'?

Are your 'pickers' armed?

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

Who claimed it was safe? As I recall it has even been noted here in this thread that owning a firearm makes you, statistically, less safe. Just that not being safe, how safe is it then to "pick up arms already in the population."?


Again, are your 'pickers' armed?

First thing to do is to shut down producers than they could have like a law that make illegal to have arms and a plan to give money to people who return their weapons to police without prejudice.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

First thing to do is to shut down producers than they could have like a law that make illegal to have arms and a plan to give money to people who return their weapons to police without prejudice.

Not the questions asked. What of those that are prejudice against shutting down their business (legal or illegal), against "a law that make illegal to have arms" and against giving up their arms at any price or cost?

Again, are your 'pickers' or enforcers (since you've now expanded it to the area of enforcement) going to be armed?

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

Again, are your 'pickers' or enforcers (since you've now expanded it to the area of enforcement) going to be armed?

The police can have arm they could use but in their car not on them, there are too many people who get shot by a police agent too nervous.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

The police can have arm they could use but in their car not on them, there are too many people who get shot by a police agent too nervous.

The question wasn't about police but about your enforcers going to "pick up arms already in the population." will they be armed?

Police can't use an firearm that is not on them. So by the time your officers realize they're in a situation where the need their firearms then get back to their car to get them, it would already be too late.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

The question wasn't about police but about your enforcers going to "pick up arms already in the population." will they be armed?

no

Quote:

Police can't use an firearm that is not on them. So by the time your officers realize they're in a situation where the need their firearms then get back to their car to get them, it would already be too late.

Stupid policeman shoot and realize after it was unecessary when people are death

[Sideroxylon]

What is it with the very obvious language affectation?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Stupid policeman shoot and realize after it was unecessary when people are death

Yet you just told us you would permit those people to keep their weapons. Seems like your utopia has its problems.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Yet you just told us you would permit those people to keep their weapons. Seems like your utopia has its problems.

The police have to keep their weapon but not on them in their car because it could take 100 years before you get rid of all weapons in your country, if a creasy fellow with a weapon try to kill everybody around him you have to stop him. The police cannot have weapon on them but in their car because there are over 1000 people who are shot by the police every year. If a bandit think the police will shoot him he will take an arm trying to shoot the policeman before they use their arm. The best police in the world don't carry arm on them.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...olice-by-race/

In nineteen countries or territories, the police do not carry firearms unless the situation is expected to merit it: Bhutan, Botswana, Cook Islands, Fiji, Iceland, Ireland, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland), South Korea, Vanuatu and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These countries exhibit gun-homicide rates markedly lower on average than countries with armed police forces. Their police forces commonly adopt a philosophy of policing by consent.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police...rgin%20Islands.

[Jack by the hedge]

The UK has never armed its police except in special circumstances. It's been a lot more than 100 years. Why are there still weapons in the UK?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

no

Then they are unlikely to get arms form people who will do anything to keep them.

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Stupid policeman shoot and realize after it was unecessary when people are death

Sending unarmed enforcers against armed targets is just as stupid.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

What is it with the very obvious language affectation?

It is a symptom of a condition he has stated to have been diagnosed with.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Yet you just told us you would permit those people to keep their weapons. Seems like your utopia has its problems.

Well, he said they could keep them in their cars, though not all police ride in cars.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

The police have to keep their weapon but not on them in their car because it could take 100 years before you get rid of all weapons in your country, if a creasy fellow with a weapon try to kill everybody around him you have to stop him. The police cannot have weapon on them but in their car because there are over 1000 people who are shot by the police every year. If a bandit think the police will shoot him he will take an arm trying to shoot the policeman before they use their arm. The best police in the world don't carry arm on them.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...olice-by-race/

In nineteen countries or territories, the police do not carry firearms unless the situation is expected to merit it: Bhutan, Botswana, Cook Islands, Fiji, Iceland, Ireland, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland), South Korea, Vanuatu and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These countries exhibit gun-homicide rates markedly lower on average than countries with armed police forces. Their police forces commonly adopt a philosophy of policing by consent.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police...rgin%20Islands.

So wouldn't trying to recover arms from someone who hasn't given them up be such a situation that is expected to merit it?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

The police have to keep their weapon but not on them in their car because it could take 100 years before you get rid of all weapons in your country, if a creasy fellow with a weapon try to kill everybody around him you have to stop him. The police cannot have weapon on them but in their car because there are over 1000 people who are shot by the police every year. If a bandit think the police will shoot him he will take an arm trying to shoot the policeman before they use their arm. The best police in the world don't carry arm on them.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...olice-by-race/

In nineteen countries or territories, the police do not carry firearms unless the situation is expected to merit it: Bhutan, Botswana, Cook Islands, Fiji, Iceland, Ireland, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland), South Korea, Vanuatu and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These countries exhibit gun-homicide rates markedly lower on average than countries with armed police forces. Their police forces commonly adopt a philosophy of policing by consent.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police...rgin%20Islands.

*Hilite added*

I should also point out that for the hilited claim you have already asserted that the unarmed can still be a threat and thus the target of an armed assault. So just by your own assertion the lack of arms for the police, as claimed above, is irrelevant.

[Gaetan]

If firearms are available for good people automaticly they are available for bad people if you want a world safer you have to get rid of it by a mundial treaty.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If firearms are available for good people automaticly they are available for bad people if you want a world safer you have to get rid of it by a mundial treaty.

Again, how would such a treaty be enforced? What happens to cheaters and violators? How do you prevent the armed form simply taking over the unarmed? Since, just by your own assertions, the unarmed can still be perceived as a threat.

Most of the methods and systems you cite are not about getting rid of arms but simply regulating them. With arms themselves being potentially needed to enforce such regulations.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

Again, how would such a treaty be enforced? What happens to cheaters and violators?

Mundial treatys at UN are respected by states and enforced by their own governments in each countries.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Mundial treatys at UN are respected by states and enforced by their own governments in each countries.

Have you been in the world long?

Dave