2 Lives Saved...

jillio said:
Howmany times have you been in that situation, Jiro?
Click to expand...

well that is a stupid question. That's like asking - how many times have you been assaulted? Is it wrong to have a preventative measure in order to prevent that from happening to you? That homeowner had preventative measure because the law allowed them to have firearm. Unfortunately for those who live in DC, they have become statistics.
 
SoS said:
Jillio, I was one of them that u told me to find it for myself, but at the same time, you are asking other to find it for you. Yes, it is called double standard. Sorry for being blunt here. You need to wake up and smell the roses that not everybody is going to bend over for you. I see you do this over and over in the past two weeks. It get OLD! PERIOD!
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are incorrect on this. I did not refer to a specific piece of research, but research as a cummulative conclusion. This was a reference to a specific incident. Additionally, asking for links to various research that supports a conclusion is not the same thing at all as asking for a link to a specific story. If you are going to tell me that this particular incident occurred, then you need to point me to a source that confirms that it actually did occur. Very simple, actually.
 
Bottesini said:
Reagan's administration was when the state mental hospitals dumped a lot of patients out on the street, with the goal of not being such a welfare state.

The law Carter signed for was then not implemented due to Reagan.
Click to expand...

No, it was in 1964 that the move for deinstitutionalization closed many of the mental hospitals, and required stricter laws for institutionalization. That is when the move toward community based treatment began. It was in direct relation to the move toward greater human rights, as at the time, many, many people were institutionalized without cause. Prior to the deinstitutionalization movement, people could be remanded to a mental institution without ever having their case reviewed, thus keeping them there for a lifetime for something as treatable as depression. It also released many people who were diagnosed with developmental disabilities that could and did become fully functioning members of society.

Deinsitutionalization has nothing to do with the laws that allow for involuntary hospitilzation of those who are deemed to be a danger to themselves and/or others, though.
 
Jiro said:
well that is a stupid question. That's like asking - how many times have you been assaulted? Is it wrong to have a preventative measure in order to prevent that from happening to you? That homeowner had preventative measure because the law allowed them to have firearm. Unfortunately for those who live in DC, they have become statistics.
Click to expand...

Its not a stupid question at all. Just one that you refuse to answer.
 
Bott & Jillio - you know.... from your discussion regarding mental patients.... you just reminded me of Angelina.

horrible....
 
jillio said:
Its not a stupid question at all. Just one that you refuse to answer.
Click to expand...

You are formulating the question based on the answer that you want to hear. :)
 
Jiro said:
You are formulating the question based on the answer that you want to hear. :)
Click to expand...

Yes with over 20k post of her, that is all the proof we need! She is blind to her own doing. :roll:
 
jillio said:
Not at all. It is a very simple question.
Click to expand...

I've already answered your question. see above. and no it is not a simple yes or no question. It's actually much more complicated than that.
 
Jiro said:
I've already answered your question. see above. and no it is not a simple yes or no question. It's actually much more complicated than that.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you have ever been attacked in your home and had your life threatened as a result is not a yes or no question? It has either happened or it hasn't.
 
jillio said:
Whether or not you have ever been attacked in your home and had your life threatened as a result is not a yes or no question? It has either happened or it hasn't.
Click to expand...

I have a preventative measure to prevent that from happening. If I were in DC, well I won't be able to answer your question.
 
Jiro said:
I have a preventative measure to prevent that from happening. If I were in DC, well I won't be able to answer your question.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. And all the criminals and mentally ill people know that you have a gun, so that prevents them from selecting your home as a target?
 
jillio said:
Oh, I see. And all the criminals and mentally ill people know that you have a gun, so that prevents them from selecting your home as a target?
Click to expand...

well that worked well in gun-required neighborhoods and gun-friendly states :cool2:
 
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland’s unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.


Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

Part of their military system, not as private citizens. Completely different situation. This is not a requirement for living in a specific neighborhood.

Additionally, if statistics on gun deaths are not kept, we don't really know how low, or how high, they are.
 
If it's a yes, read above...if it's a no...don't read above. :lol:
 
sequoias said:
If it's a yes, read above...if it's a no...don't read above. :lol:
Click to expand...

Nope. Its still a no. Switzerland does not have specific neighborhoods that require all residents to own a gun. It requires men of specific ages deemed to be in service of the military, to have weapons.
 
Back
Top