Guns are not the cause of gun violence...prosecutors and judges who release gun criminals are...

[frigidweirdo]

So you are saying letting violent sociopaths who are responsible for almost all of the violence run around free is the solution to crime....you are a real genius.......

Richmond California, a place with a population of just over 100,000 has about 17 known criminals who are responsible for 76% of their shootings.......lock them up and guess what, their crime rate goes down about 76%.....

vouchers will improve education for the poor, who are trapped in democrat run schools that aren't educating them....

No, I'm not saying that. However after I don't know how long talking with you, I'd expect you to have understood at least a little of what I was saying. You seem to just be after a kill at any opportunity.

Also, I'm not saying don't lock people up. I'm saying the US locks up too many people as an excuse for doing absolutely fucking nothing to solve the social problems the country is facing. It costs how much to keep them there?

Cost of locking up Americans too high Pew study Reuters

"It estimated states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal year 2008 and incarcerating one inmate cost them, on average, $29,000 a year."

Imagine if you put some of that money into education, proper education and you could keep many of these people off the streets. Besides, many of those locked up shouldn't be there. Three strikes and you're out, and other such things that put people away for a long time for not much is ridiculous.

Vouchers will never, EVER help education for the poor.

You tell me how taking money OUT of education and giving it to rich people will ever help poor people to do better at education?
I've heard your argument, that some (like 10) poor people out of I don't know how many poor kids in the US managed to go to a better school. However it still doesn't stop millions still going to bad schools.

How do you make sure ALL kids go to good schools? Vouchers? Fuck off. Vouchers have NEVER been shown to be effective.

Firstly, people say that private schools are more effective than states schools. Sure they are. They have kids who generally care, who work hard, who are going somewhere, and who have parents who care. The latter is massively important in education. They get the good kids. They're clearly going to do better. But we're talking about changing the fortunes of ALL kids in the US and getting kids in poor areas who have many problems and making sure they don't make the same mistakes as their parents.
They aren't all going to go to private school, in fact 99.99999999% of the aren't.

NEA - School Vouchers The Emerging Track Record

"In the places where vouchers exist, access means a chance in a lottery. "

Ie, this is not good education for all. This is good education for the lucky.

"One's name is thrown into the hopper. If it is pulled out, the parent gets a chit good for use in a limited number of places. One might be able to use the voucher to pay private school tuition, if the school has space available and there are no other barriers - such as exclusions or preferences based on race, gender, ability, or other factors."

"Wisconsin state law sets the cap for voucher participants at 15,000. And yet, only 10,739 students use them in 2001-02, less than 10 percent of the Milwaukee public schools enrollment. "

Some just don't take it up. If it were so good, why wouldn't all in Wisconsin take up the vouchers?

"Less than 5 percent of Cleveland students use vouchers, about 4,195 students in 2001-02. About two-thirds of the Cleveland students who use vouchers never attended public schools. Vouchers in Cleveland are mostly rebates for families who were already sending their children to private schools. "

In Cleveland, like in Nevada, it's a rebate for the rich. Sucks money out of state run schools and gives it to the rich.

"In the Florida "statewide" voucher plan, about 47 students participate in two schools in Pensacola in 2001-02. "

"
VOUCHERS HAVE FAILED TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY OR CONSISTENTLY FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE MOVED FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
Research on the impact vouchers on student achievement is surrounded by enormous controversy, with questions about the motives of those conducting the research, the methods, and the sources of funding. According to Time magazine, "A study of private programs in New York, Washington, and Dayton, Ohio . . . showed a headline-grabbing 6.3% gain in test scores by African-American students who used vouchers. However, one of the research companies [Mathematica] that gathered data for [Paul] Peterson expressed concern about how he used the information, and called his study's findings premature." (Time, 10/9/00)

"Statistically significant" achievement gains for voucher students are negligible. The gains have not been consistent, they have been far below projections, and they give no compelling evidence to justify expanding vouchers."

I could go on all day.

There might be some successes with individual students who go to better schools. But the point being that we're dealing with MASS EDUCATION, with millions of people stuck in poor areas with poor schools and voucher schemes aren't large enough, private school places aren't wide enough by a MASSIVE margin for this to have ANY IMPACT on the US whatsoever.

Chile has also had school vouchers, a more extensive system, 90% of kids get funded for their place at any school they like.

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/english/sec/library/0102rp06e.pdf

Here is a report by some people in Hong Kong on the voucher schemes.

About Chile: ""(a) middle- and upper-class students being the major beneficiaries; (b) worsened academic results for lower-class students; and (c) cream-skimming by private-subsidized schools"

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) private-subsidized schools were more effective and superior; and (b) the overall quality of education had improved"


Of the Milwaukee scheme: "(a) closure of participating schools due to unstable financial conditions; (b) unused capacity of participating schools owing to low programme awareness and competition from other educational programmes; and (c) higher taxes levied on property taxpayers."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

The Cleveland scheme: "However, undesirable outcomes included:- (a) low-income students from grades 4 or above could not benefit from the programme; and (b) high administration cost."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

All in all there is little to no evidence that a voucher scheme can deal with the issues the US education system is facing, and there appears to be lots of evidence that it's just a scheme by the rich for funnelling money from the govt to the pockets of the rich.

Moron...if all students in the country get the voucher it isn't a lottery is it....the democrats have limited vouchers through their unions and made it into lotteries to keep them from working......

Letting parent's control their children's education at all levels and the freedom to leave failing schools is how you improve education...that is why Apple and Microsoft are so successful, they have to compete for customers.....you and your democrat buddies want to keep the poor trapped in crap schools...we want to actually get them an education.....

What country has a successful school system using vouchers? You seem to know very little about education. Do you have children?

Who are you replying to?

Person you are ignoring. I'm unaware of any voucher success stories.

Yeah, me neither.

I don't have a problem with choice. Many countries have choice of schools for parents, though just not with vouchers handing money to rich kids. If they actually wanted choice, they'd actually just make choice. Like, hey, you live in this city, you can apply to any school you like. They might not let you in, but you can at least apply. Then you have choice. Doesn't take a fancy voucher scheme giving money to rich kids already in private school to do that.

But then some people clearly have an agenda, and that agenda is giving rich people free money.

 

[Brain357]

No, I'm not saying that. However after I don't know how long talking with you, I'd expect you to have understood at least a little of what I was saying. You seem to just be after a kill at any opportunity.

Also, I'm not saying don't lock people up. I'm saying the US locks up too many people as an excuse for doing absolutely fucking nothing to solve the social problems the country is facing. It costs how much to keep them there?

Cost of locking up Americans too high Pew study Reuters

"It estimated states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal year 2008 and incarcerating one inmate cost them, on average, $29,000 a year."

Imagine if you put some of that money into education, proper education and you could keep many of these people off the streets. Besides, many of those locked up shouldn't be there. Three strikes and you're out, and other such things that put people away for a long time for not much is ridiculous.

Vouchers will never, EVER help education for the poor.

You tell me how taking money OUT of education and giving it to rich people will ever help poor people to do better at education?
I've heard your argument, that some (like 10) poor people out of I don't know how many poor kids in the US managed to go to a better school. However it still doesn't stop millions still going to bad schools.

How do you make sure ALL kids go to good schools? Vouchers? Fuck off. Vouchers have NEVER been shown to be effective.

Firstly, people say that private schools are more effective than states schools. Sure they are. They have kids who generally care, who work hard, who are going somewhere, and who have parents who care. The latter is massively important in education. They get the good kids. They're clearly going to do better. But we're talking about changing the fortunes of ALL kids in the US and getting kids in poor areas who have many problems and making sure they don't make the same mistakes as their parents.
They aren't all going to go to private school, in fact 99.99999999% of the aren't.

NEA - School Vouchers The Emerging Track Record

"In the places where vouchers exist, access means a chance in a lottery. "

Ie, this is not good education for all. This is good education for the lucky.

"One's name is thrown into the hopper. If it is pulled out, the parent gets a chit good for use in a limited number of places. One might be able to use the voucher to pay private school tuition, if the school has space available and there are no other barriers - such as exclusions or preferences based on race, gender, ability, or other factors."

"Wisconsin state law sets the cap for voucher participants at 15,000. And yet, only 10,739 students use them in 2001-02, less than 10 percent of the Milwaukee public schools enrollment. "

Some just don't take it up. If it were so good, why wouldn't all in Wisconsin take up the vouchers?

"Less than 5 percent of Cleveland students use vouchers, about 4,195 students in 2001-02. About two-thirds of the Cleveland students who use vouchers never attended public schools. Vouchers in Cleveland are mostly rebates for families who were already sending their children to private schools. "

In Cleveland, like in Nevada, it's a rebate for the rich. Sucks money out of state run schools and gives it to the rich.

"In the Florida "statewide" voucher plan, about 47 students participate in two schools in Pensacola in 2001-02. "

"
VOUCHERS HAVE FAILED TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY OR CONSISTENTLY FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE MOVED FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
Research on the impact vouchers on student achievement is surrounded by enormous controversy, with questions about the motives of those conducting the research, the methods, and the sources of funding. According to Time magazine, "A study of private programs in New York, Washington, and Dayton, Ohio . . . showed a headline-grabbing 6.3% gain in test scores by African-American students who used vouchers. However, one of the research companies [Mathematica] that gathered data for [Paul] Peterson expressed concern about how he used the information, and called his study's findings premature." (Time, 10/9/00)

"Statistically significant" achievement gains for voucher students are negligible. The gains have not been consistent, they have been far below projections, and they give no compelling evidence to justify expanding vouchers."

I could go on all day.

There might be some successes with individual students who go to better schools. But the point being that we're dealing with MASS EDUCATION, with millions of people stuck in poor areas with poor schools and voucher schemes aren't large enough, private school places aren't wide enough by a MASSIVE margin for this to have ANY IMPACT on the US whatsoever.

Chile has also had school vouchers, a more extensive system, 90% of kids get funded for their place at any school they like.

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/english/sec/library/0102rp06e.pdf

Here is a report by some people in Hong Kong on the voucher schemes.

About Chile: ""(a) middle- and upper-class students being the major beneficiaries; (b) worsened academic results for lower-class students; and (c) cream-skimming by private-subsidized schools"

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) private-subsidized schools were more effective and superior; and (b) the overall quality of education had improved"


Of the Milwaukee scheme: "(a) closure of participating schools due to unstable financial conditions; (b) unused capacity of participating schools owing to low programme awareness and competition from other educational programmes; and (c) higher taxes levied on property taxpayers."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

The Cleveland scheme: "However, undesirable outcomes included:- (a) low-income students from grades 4 or above could not benefit from the programme; and (b) high administration cost."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

All in all there is little to no evidence that a voucher scheme can deal with the issues the US education system is facing, and there appears to be lots of evidence that it's just a scheme by the rich for funnelling money from the govt to the pockets of the rich.

Moron...if all students in the country get the voucher it isn't a lottery is it....the democrats have limited vouchers through their unions and made it into lotteries to keep them from working......

Letting parent's control their children's education at all levels and the freedom to leave failing schools is how you improve education...that is why Apple and Microsoft are so successful, they have to compete for customers.....you and your democrat buddies want to keep the poor trapped in crap schools...we want to actually get them an education.....

What country has a successful school system using vouchers? You seem to know very little about education. Do you have children?

Who are you replying to?

Person you are ignoring. I'm unaware of any voucher success stories.

Yeah, me neither.

I don't have a problem with choice. Many countries have choice of schools for parents, though just not with vouchers handing money to rich kids. If they actually wanted choice, they'd actually just make choice. Like, hey, you live in this city, you can apply to any school you like. They might not let you in, but you can at least apply. Then you have choice. Doesn't take a fancy voucher scheme giving money to rich kids already in private school to do that.

But then some people clearly have an agenda, and that agenda is giving rich people free money.

I'm pretty sure it's just another attack on unions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Moron...if all students in the country get the voucher it isn't a lottery is it....the democrats have limited vouchers through their unions and made it into lotteries to keep them from working......

Letting parent's control their children's education at all levels and the freedom to leave failing schools is how you improve education...that is why Apple and Microsoft are so successful, they have to compete for customers.....you and your democrat buddies want to keep the poor trapped in crap schools...we want to actually get them an education.....

What country has a successful school system using vouchers? You seem to know very little about education. Do you have children?

Who are you replying to?

Person you are ignoring. I'm unaware of any voucher success stories.

Yeah, me neither.

I don't have a problem with choice. Many countries have choice of schools for parents, though just not with vouchers handing money to rich kids. If they actually wanted choice, they'd actually just make choice. Like, hey, you live in this city, you can apply to any school you like. They might not let you in, but you can at least apply. Then you have choice. Doesn't take a fancy voucher scheme giving money to rich kids already in private school to do that.

But then some people clearly have an agenda, and that agenda is giving rich people free money.

I'm pretty sure it's just another attack on unions.

I don't think so. I have a problem with the education unions in the US, and I don't think they should have vouchers.

 

[2aguy]

Florida started the move for concealed carry in 1987......since that time all the states now have some form of carry law...to the point that 12.8 million Americans now carry guns for self defense....so 28 years of actual implementation of guns in our society.....and what happened?

The gun murder rate has gone down, not up....accidental gun deaths have gone down, not up......

And each time a state tried to implement gun ownership laws you guys said it would cause the gun murder rate to go up, not down...

And you were wrong. 28 years of actual implementation....not numbers pulled out of your asses....

Murder rates have been going down for over 30 years. Concealed carry does not effect crime rates. In Chicago and WI violent crime has gone up since getting concealed carry.

they have had it for 2 years and have fought it all the way....notice it isn't the rest of the state that has a problem.....just the cities with gangs running the politicians, and keeping the cities from hiring more police.....if guns were the problem, the whole state would have an increase in gun violence....that isn't happening....only those areas fighting implementing concealed carry have a problem...

 

[2aguy]

No, I'm not saying that. However after I don't know how long talking with you, I'd expect you to have understood at least a little of what I was saying. You seem to just be after a kill at any opportunity.

Also, I'm not saying don't lock people up. I'm saying the US locks up too many people as an excuse for doing absolutely fucking nothing to solve the social problems the country is facing. It costs how much to keep them there?

Cost of locking up Americans too high Pew study Reuters

"It estimated states spent a record $51.7 billion on corrections in fiscal year 2008 and incarcerating one inmate cost them, on average, $29,000 a year."

Imagine if you put some of that money into education, proper education and you could keep many of these people off the streets. Besides, many of those locked up shouldn't be there. Three strikes and you're out, and other such things that put people away for a long time for not much is ridiculous.

Vouchers will never, EVER help education for the poor.

You tell me how taking money OUT of education and giving it to rich people will ever help poor people to do better at education?
I've heard your argument, that some (like 10) poor people out of I don't know how many poor kids in the US managed to go to a better school. However it still doesn't stop millions still going to bad schools.

How do you make sure ALL kids go to good schools? Vouchers? Fuck off. Vouchers have NEVER been shown to be effective.

Firstly, people say that private schools are more effective than states schools. Sure they are. They have kids who generally care, who work hard, who are going somewhere, and who have parents who care. The latter is massively important in education. They get the good kids. They're clearly going to do better. But we're talking about changing the fortunes of ALL kids in the US and getting kids in poor areas who have many problems and making sure they don't make the same mistakes as their parents.
They aren't all going to go to private school, in fact 99.99999999% of the aren't.

NEA - School Vouchers The Emerging Track Record

"In the places where vouchers exist, access means a chance in a lottery. "

Ie, this is not good education for all. This is good education for the lucky.

"One's name is thrown into the hopper. If it is pulled out, the parent gets a chit good for use in a limited number of places. One might be able to use the voucher to pay private school tuition, if the school has space available and there are no other barriers - such as exclusions or preferences based on race, gender, ability, or other factors."

"Wisconsin state law sets the cap for voucher participants at 15,000. And yet, only 10,739 students use them in 2001-02, less than 10 percent of the Milwaukee public schools enrollment. "

Some just don't take it up. If it were so good, why wouldn't all in Wisconsin take up the vouchers?

"Less than 5 percent of Cleveland students use vouchers, about 4,195 students in 2001-02. About two-thirds of the Cleveland students who use vouchers never attended public schools. Vouchers in Cleveland are mostly rebates for families who were already sending their children to private schools. "

In Cleveland, like in Nevada, it's a rebate for the rich. Sucks money out of state run schools and gives it to the rich.

"In the Florida "statewide" voucher plan, about 47 students participate in two schools in Pensacola in 2001-02. "

"
VOUCHERS HAVE FAILED TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY OR CONSISTENTLY FOR STUDENTS WHO HAVE MOVED FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
Research on the impact vouchers on student achievement is surrounded by enormous controversy, with questions about the motives of those conducting the research, the methods, and the sources of funding. According to Time magazine, "A study of private programs in New York, Washington, and Dayton, Ohio . . . showed a headline-grabbing 6.3% gain in test scores by African-American students who used vouchers. However, one of the research companies [Mathematica] that gathered data for [Paul] Peterson expressed concern about how he used the information, and called his study's findings premature." (Time, 10/9/00)

"Statistically significant" achievement gains for voucher students are negligible. The gains have not been consistent, they have been far below projections, and they give no compelling evidence to justify expanding vouchers."

I could go on all day.

There might be some successes with individual students who go to better schools. But the point being that we're dealing with MASS EDUCATION, with millions of people stuck in poor areas with poor schools and voucher schemes aren't large enough, private school places aren't wide enough by a MASSIVE margin for this to have ANY IMPACT on the US whatsoever.

Chile has also had school vouchers, a more extensive system, 90% of kids get funded for their place at any school they like.

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr01-02/english/sec/library/0102rp06e.pdf

Here is a report by some people in Hong Kong on the voucher schemes.

About Chile: ""(a) middle- and upper-class students being the major beneficiaries; (b) worsened academic results for lower-class students; and (c) cream-skimming by private-subsidized schools"

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) private-subsidized schools were more effective and superior; and (b) the overall quality of education had improved"


Of the Milwaukee scheme: "(a) closure of participating schools due to unstable financial conditions; (b) unused capacity of participating schools owing to low programme awareness and competition from other educational programmes; and (c) higher taxes levied on property taxpayers."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

The Cleveland scheme: "However, undesirable outcomes included:- (a) low-income students from grades 4 or above could not benefit from the programme; and (b) high administration cost."

"There was also no conclusive evidence to show that:- (a) better student performance in private schools; and (b) ethnic segregation had improved."

All in all there is little to no evidence that a voucher scheme can deal with the issues the US education system is facing, and there appears to be lots of evidence that it's just a scheme by the rich for funnelling money from the govt to the pockets of the rich.

Moron...if all students in the country get the voucher it isn't a lottery is it....the democrats have limited vouchers through their unions and made it into lotteries to keep them from working......

Letting parent's control their children's education at all levels and the freedom to leave failing schools is how you improve education...that is why Apple and Microsoft are so successful, they have to compete for customers.....you and your democrat buddies want to keep the poor trapped in crap schools...we want to actually get them an education.....

What country has a successful school system using vouchers? You seem to know very little about education. Do you have children?

Who are you replying to?

Person you are ignoring. I'm unaware of any voucher success stories.

Yeah, me neither.

I don't have a problem with choice. Many countries have choice of schools for parents, though just not with vouchers handing money to rich kids. If they actually wanted choice, they'd actually just make choice. Like, hey, you live in this city, you can apply to any school you like. They might not let you in, but you can at least apply. Then you have choice. Doesn't take a fancy voucher scheme giving money to rich kids already in private school to do that.

But then some people clearly have an agenda, and that agenda is giving rich people free money.

what is your problem with rich people? all American children should get a voucher from their state for their education....a basic rate, if rich parents want to spend more that isn't a problem...but all parent's should control where their kids go to school...and vouchers give them that freedom....

Brain....all you want is to control other people...that is a mental defect that you have...give people the freedom of vouchers and education will improve...just like every other business where they actually have to please their customers...unlike current public education.

 

[Brain357]

Moron...if all students in the country get the voucher it isn't a lottery is it....the democrats have limited vouchers through their unions and made it into lotteries to keep them from working......

Letting parent's control their children's education at all levels and the freedom to leave failing schools is how you improve education...that is why Apple and Microsoft are so successful, they have to compete for customers.....you and your democrat buddies want to keep the poor trapped in crap schools...we want to actually get them an education.....

What country has a successful school system using vouchers? You seem to know very little about education. Do you have children?

Who are you replying to?

Person you are ignoring. I'm unaware of any voucher success stories.

Yeah, me neither.

I don't have a problem with choice. Many countries have choice of schools for parents, though just not with vouchers handing money to rich kids. If they actually wanted choice, they'd actually just make choice. Like, hey, you live in this city, you can apply to any school you like. They might not let you in, but you can at least apply. Then you have choice. Doesn't take a fancy voucher scheme giving money to rich kids already in private school to do that.

But then some people clearly have an agenda, and that agenda is giving rich people free money.

what is your problem with rich people? all American children should get a voucher from their state for their education....a basic rate, if rich parents want to spend more that isn't a problem...but all parent's should control where their kids go to school...and vouchers give them that freedom....

Brain....all you want is to control other people...that is a mental defect that you have...give people the freedom of vouchers and education will improve...just like every other business where they actually have to please their customers...unlike current public education.

You didn't answer my questions.

 

[Brain357]

Florida started the move for concealed carry in 1987......since that time all the states now have some form of carry law...to the point that 12.8 million Americans now carry guns for self defense....so 28 years of actual implementation of guns in our society.....and what happened?

The gun murder rate has gone down, not up....accidental gun deaths have gone down, not up......

And each time a state tried to implement gun ownership laws you guys said it would cause the gun murder rate to go up, not down...

And you were wrong. 28 years of actual implementation....not numbers pulled out of your asses....

Murder rates have been going down for over 30 years. Concealed carry does not effect crime rates. In Chicago and WI violent crime has gone up since getting concealed carry.

they have had it for 2 years and have fought it all the way....notice it isn't the rest of the state that has a problem.....just the cities with gangs running the politicians, and keeping the cities from hiring more police.....if guns were the problem, the whole state would have an increase in gun violence....that isn't happening....only those areas fighting implementing concealed carry have a problem...

Guns aren't the problem, but not the solution either.

 

[danielpalos]

Gun lovers not registering for posse duty should be as serious as not registering for jury duty.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gun lovers not registering for posse duty should be as serious as not registering for jury duty.

No one registers for jury duty.

 

[danielpalos]

Gun lovers not registering for posse duty should be as serious as not registering for jury duty.

No one registers for jury duty.

In my state we "confirm" our mustering for jury duty when so required by the State and the Judicature.

 

[Ernie S.]

Lesse...
15 guns, 10 locked up in a safe, 5 not.
The guns locked up in a safe have caused exactly the same amount of violence than the 5 not locked up..
What am I doing wrong?

Unless of course one of the guns goes missing. Which do you think is most likely to go missing,the one in the safe or the one not?

With 5 guns ready to go, my guess is that none will go missing.

 

[Ernie S.]

You know brain you always post that. You realize that Switzerland....just about every home has a select fire, military grade rifle in it..........and yet they aren't stolen as often...right? Perhaps we need to import Swiss criminals, they don't seem to steal guns like our criminals do.......

Criminal culture, not guns, is the problem........

Bringing out Switzerland without understanding the country.

Switzerland has less criminals because their govt acts sensibly, and their people don't spend their whole time slagging off the other party without ever thinking.

You talk about crime culture. How would change crime culture if you were in charge? Lock up MORE people?

No, they have less crime because the have a more homogeneous population. Switzerland is 0.6% black

 

[2aguy]

You know brain you always post that. You realize that Switzerland....just about every home has a select fire, military grade rifle in it..........and yet they aren't stolen as often...right? Perhaps we need to import Swiss criminals, they don't seem to steal guns like our criminals do.......

Criminal culture, not guns, is the problem........

Bringing out Switzerland without understanding the country.

Switzerland has less criminals because their govt acts sensibly, and their people don't spend their whole time slagging off the other party without ever thinking.

You talk about crime culture. How would change crime culture if you were in charge? Lock up MORE people?

No, they have less crime because the have a more homogeneous population. Switzerland is 0.6% black

But they have imported muslims.....that will change the crime rate....

 

[Ernie S.]

You know brain you always post that. You realize that Switzerland....just about every home has a select fire, military grade rifle in it..........and yet they aren't stolen as often...right? Perhaps we need to import Swiss criminals, they don't seem to steal guns like our criminals do.......

Criminal culture, not guns, is the problem........

Bringing out Switzerland without understanding the country.

Switzerland has less criminals because their govt acts sensibly, and their people don't spend their whole time slagging off the other party without ever thinking.

You talk about crime culture. How would change crime culture if you were in charge? Lock up MORE people?

No, they have less crime because the have a more homogeneous population. Switzerland is 0.6% black

But they have imported muslims.....that will change the crime rate....

They'll get themselves some work place violence if they let any on military bases.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You know brain you always post that. You realize that Switzerland....just about every home has a select fire, military grade rifle in it..........and yet they aren't stolen as often...right? Perhaps we need to import Swiss criminals, they don't seem to steal guns like our criminals do.......

Criminal culture, not guns, is the problem........

Bringing out Switzerland without understanding the country.

Switzerland has less criminals because their govt acts sensibly, and their people don't spend their whole time slagging off the other party without ever thinking.

You talk about crime culture. How would change crime culture if you were in charge? Lock up MORE people?

No, they have less crime because the have a more homogeneous population. Switzerland is 0.6% black

Prove that a more homogeneous population is means less crime.

Also, what do you mean by "homogeneous"?

Switzerland has 4 languages, 20% of people are foreign residents, every year more than 2000 Africans gain Swiss citizenship, and more than 3,000 Asians.
37% are Catholics, 25% protestant, 8% Muslim, 20% no religion.

They certainly are not homogeneous.

 

[2aguy]

You know brain you always post that. You realize that Switzerland....just about every home has a select fire, military grade rifle in it..........and yet they aren't stolen as often...right? Perhaps we need to import Swiss criminals, they don't seem to steal guns like our criminals do.......

Criminal culture, not guns, is the problem........

Bringing out Switzerland without understanding the country.

Switzerland has less criminals because their govt acts sensibly, and their people don't spend their whole time slagging off the other party without ever thinking.

You talk about crime culture. How would change crime culture if you were in charge? Lock up MORE people?

No, they have less crime because the have a more homogeneous population. Switzerland is 0.6% black

Prove that a more homogeneous population is means less crime.

Also, what do you mean by "homogeneous"?

Switzerland has 4 languages, 20% of people are foreign residents, every year more than 2000 Africans gain Swiss citizenship, and more than 3,000 Asians.
37% are Catholics, 25% protestant, 8% Muslim, 20% no religion.

They certainly are not homogeneous.

Culturally.....and Switzerland is seeing and increase in crime...due to an increase in immigrants.....

 

[Ernie S.]

You know brain you always post that. You realize that Switzerland....just about every home has a select fire, military grade rifle in it..........and yet they aren't stolen as often...right? Perhaps we need to import Swiss criminals, they don't seem to steal guns like our criminals do.......

Criminal culture, not guns, is the problem........

Bringing out Switzerland without understanding the country.

Switzerland has less criminals because their govt acts sensibly, and their people don't spend their whole time slagging off the other party without ever thinking.

You talk about crime culture. How would change crime culture if you were in charge? Lock up MORE people?

No, they have less crime because the have a more homogeneous population. Switzerland is 0.6% black

Prove that a more homogeneous population is means less crime.

Also, what do you mean by "homogeneous"?

Switzerland has 4 languages, 20% of people are foreign residents, every year more than 2000 Africans gain Swiss citizenship, and more than 3,000 Asians.
37% are Catholics, 25% protestant, 8% Muslim, 20% no religion.

They certainly are not homogeneous.

Let's just say they don't have Bloods and Crips. They don't have illegal immigrants rushing in to take advantage of your dear leader's benevolence.

 

[IronFist]

That's pretty strange to hear that guns don't cause gun violence since there would be no gun violence without guns, obviously. I still thing that people should not be allowed to bear guns cause there are too many freaks out there who hate humanity and like to shoot people.

 

[Ernie S.]

That's pretty strange to hear that guns don't cause gun violence since there would be no gun violence without guns, obviously. I still thing that people should not be allowed to bear guns cause there are too many freaks out there who hate humanity and like to shoot people.

Without freaks out there who hate humanity, guns would just sit there and do nothing. Guns have no ability to shoot people all by themselves. They harbor no evil or no benevolence.

 

[2aguy]

That's pretty strange to hear that guns don't cause gun violence since there would be no gun violence without guns, obviously. I still thing that people should not be allowed to bear guns cause there are too many freaks out there who hate humanity and like to shoot people.

Yes...the left does hate humanity and they do like to shoot people...mass graves don't fill themselves after all....and that is exactly why normal people need to keep and bear arms....it has been 70 years since the left went on a killing spree...they may be looking to try it again....