Ocena teme:
  • 0 Glas(ov) - 0 Povprečje
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Strelski incident izgovor za zaostritev zakonodaje?
"m Napisal:Ti povem ,da bi jih z enim stres testom še pol na našem forumu padl [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_redface.gif[/img] a medicina se načeloma ne spušča tako globoko

Mr.T-ju bi lahko podelili koncesijo za opravljanje posebnih zdr. pregledov. Tam bi (podobno kot je zastavljen posebni preizkus z orožjem pred prvo nabavo streliva oz. izdajo orožnega lista...) lahko s svojim nedvoumnim talentom lepo zaslužil, pa še država bi se lahko v Bruslju hvalila, da imamo 2x čekirane strelce... [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_lol.gif[/img]
"Or Napisal:Mr.T-ju bi lahko podelili koncesijo za opravljanje posebnih zdr. pregledov

kdo pa pravi da mr.T to že sedaj ne počne... vi pa mislite da on kar tako v tri dni provocira [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
Ja moč... mokre sanje nekaterih.
Citat:kdo pa pravi da mr.T to že sedaj ne počne... vi pa mislite da on kar tako v tri dni provocira [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_mrgreen.gif[/img]
A si moral povedat [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/eusa_naughty.gif[/img] [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/extra_bp.gif[/img]

Citat: Ja moč... mokre sanje nekaterih.
a misliš tiste reveže, ki bi radi za pasom nosili orožje.
No potem se pa poponoma strinjava

Evo pa še smeška spodaj

Attached files [Image: 1996_70321596d295f113b7b496c3b2404e10.jpg]
"m Napisal:...
Tale Mother Jones je pa 100% objektiven vir ane.

"This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face"
"not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way" Ja če bi bili preprečeni oz. hitro ustavljeni, ne bi mogli govoriti o masovnih pobojih.
"law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea"
Ta, sicer uspešen oborožen civilist, je bil marinec, on drugi bivši policaj, zato ne štejeta ipd.

Več na tem linku: [url="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings"]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -shootings[/url]

Dejstvo, da popoln laik nima dobrih možnosti pri ustavljanju agresije s strelnim orožjem (ampak vseeno večje, kot z lepo besedo:)) ne more biti argument za prepoved nošenja, za kar je potrebno posebno dovoljenje, ki ni vezano na siceršnjo dostopnost orožja. Kar se trenutne diskusije tiče me moti tudi to, da te super objektivni novinarji veselo pišejo, da orožje ni (učinkovita) rešitev, hkrati pa ne dajo alternative. (En primer, če je komu do branja: [url="http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/activeshooter.html"]http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/activeshooter.html[/url])
Dotaknil bi se še "argumenta", da civilisti s svojim streljanjem še dodatno ogrožajo ostale civiliste - se kdo še spomni nedavnega ''pohoda'' v New Yorku in posledic policijske uporabe orožja? Torej je treba vsem policistom odvzeti orožje, ker lahko povzročijo kolateralno škodo (in tudi redno jo)?
Zanima me kaj bo NRA povedala na petkovi tiskovki?

Ali bo NRA se enkrat sla v gnili kompromis ali lahko slisimo govor v smislu:"From my cold death hands!"
Citat:Tale Mother Jones je pa 100% objektiven vir ane.
Kaj pa vem, ima pa lepe tabelce

Aj kliknil prehitr sej res to ni kredibilno...
No tole je ena iz Officiere.ch preberite pol pa za komentarji na plano
Citat:A League of Our Own: gun culture in Israel and Switzerland isn’t anything like it is in the United States.
Posted on December 19, 2012
The article was first published on Foreign Policy. Re-published on offiziere.ch with the kind permission of Foreign Policy and Janet Rosenbaum – thanks!

Following the tragic shooting last week in Newtown, Conn., two stories leapt out at me. The first was the astonishing tale of a teacher, Victoria Soto, who hid her first-graders in closets and took a bullet rather than risking the children’s lives by hiding with them. The second featured a photograph of an Israeli woman with a military-style long gun slung across her back, herding children protectively. The contrast between the powerful Israeli woman and the unarmed American woman was striking. Looking at the two stories, I wished Soto had been armed and able to shoot first.

Israel, along with Switzerland, is one of the countries gun-control opponents trot out in their claim that guns aren’t the reason for mass killings like the Newtown slaughter. With universal military service and seemingly ubiquitous firearms, Israel and Switzerland seem heroic. In these countries, many think, the teacher really could have shot the murderer. The argument runs like this: Both Israel and Switzerland have high rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun violence. Ergo, gun control is not the answer.

Conservative commentator Thomas Sowell used this trusty comparison again today when decrying the “shrill ignorance of ‘gun control’ advocates.” “Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates,” he wrote, going on to name Israel as another country with “high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates.”

Predictably, he’s not telling the whole story. Switzerland has tight gun control laws – and so does Israel. Here are five facts that Americans should know about the role guns play in self-defense in the United States, Switzerland, and Israel.

The self-defense fallacy
In all three countries, self-defensive gun use is rare. Guns are six times more likely to be used against members of a household than against intruders, according to nationwide telephonic surveys. (Nonlethal weapons such as baseball bats are 12 times more likely to be used against intruders than guns.) And guns are 10 times more likely to be used by criminals than against them. Moreover, the use of firearms for self defense is almost certainly over-reported. More than 1 million Americans each year claim to have shot criminals. If this were true, the nation’s emergency rooms would be filled with nothing but foiled criminals, because over 90 percent of criminals who are shot end up in the hospital.

Those who see firearms as vital for self-defense also often conflate military and civilian use. Jeanne Assam managed to halt a mass-casualty shooting at a mega-church in Colorado in 2007, but it turned out she was a former police officer who had been hired for security. Likewise, terrorist attacks in Israel have been stopped by off-duty soldiers using service weapons. Indeed, of the cases I have reviewed where Israeli or Swiss civilians supposedly used guns to prevent casualties, all involved off-duty or former soldiers or police, or went wrong when a civilian shot at someone who was not a terrorist.

Fewer guns than you think
Despite universal military service, Israel and Switzerland have substantially fewer guns than the United States. When you include illegal guns, the United States has about one gun per person, Switzerland has half a gun per person, and Israel has 0.07 guns per person, according to the Small Arms Survey. Half of American households have a firearm, whereas only 30 percent of all Swiss households do, and most of those are army guns, according to my analysis of the International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS). The percentage of Swiss households that report owning guns for self-protection is in the single digits. (Israeli firearm data is not available through ICVS, but the percentage of households with a gun must be in the low single digits, given the Small Arms Survey estimate of 0.07 guns per person.)

A privilege, not a right
Both Israel and Switzerland put the onus on would-be gun owners to explain why they need these weapons. Israel limits gun ownership to security workers, people who transport valuables or explosives, residents of the West Bank, and hunters. People who don’t fall into one of those categories cannot obtain a firearm permit. Moreover, Israel rejects 40 percent of firearm permit applicants, the highest rejection rate in the Western world. Both Switzerland and Israel require yearly (or more frequent) permit renewals to insure that the reasons are still applicable. New Jersey is one of few U.S. states that requires a reason for buying a handgun.

Far from being a gun paradise, Switzerland is one of only six countries in the world that requires comprehensive details of the firearm, owner, and all firearm transfers to be reported to the federal government. It also requires two levels of firearm permits: one for acquisition and one for possession. U.S. states vary in their gun-control stricture, but many don’t even require a permit to purchase a gun, and 34 U.S. states have only minimal requirements for concealed carry permits. Statistical analyses show that these “shall-issue” states have higher rates of homicide.

Strict and getting stricter
As stringent as Israel and Switzerland are, these countries are getting stricter. It took just one mass shooting 11 years ago in Switzerland to boost public support for gun control. Despite universal male service in the army reserves, only a quarter of Swiss households keep an army gun at home. Reserve members in many francophone cantons store their weapons in unit arsenals and town weapons depots rather than in their homes. German-speaking cantons still resist storing weapons in centralized depots, but they may pay the price in greater suicides with army weapons: Epidemiologic studies find that the cantons with lower household gun ownership have lower rates of firearm suicide and homicide-suicide.

Israel, too, required soldiers to leave their weapons on base during weekend leave as part of an effort to curb military suicides that began in 2006. Since the regulations were introduced, there has been a 40 percent reduction in the weekend suicide rate, while the weekday rate remained flat. Soldiers planning to commit suicide on weekend leave were apparently thwarted by their lack of firearm access, but by the time they returned to the base, the impulse had passed, reinforcing the public health literature that suggests that reducing firearm access reduces suicide rates.

Leave it to the pros
More than 15 percent of U.S. households report owning a gun for self-defense purposes, compared with only about 3 percent of Swiss households, according to my analysis of ICVS data. Unlike Switzerland, Israel has well-known security concerns, but it limits security to the professionals. Universal army service entrusts every 18-21 year old soldier with a gun, but only lieutenant colonels and above can own guns after their service ends. Schools employ armed commercial security guards, but teachers haven’t carried guns since the 1970s. Since its founding, Israel has had a Civil Guard that employs civilian volunteers, in part, to fight terrorism. Such an effort would seem to be an opening for civilian gun ownership, but volunteers in Israel’s Civil Guard are only entitled to a gun permit after 5 years of service. The country’s security policies are designed to keep amateurs from carrying guns in the street – even amateurs who have served 3 years in the army.

The bottom line
Gun advocates often laud the wise and mature gun culture that prevails in Israel and Switzerland, calling for the United States to follow these countries in promoting civilian firearm access for self-protection. But they’re praising a fictional version of these countries. The real Israel and Switzerland have few guns and a great many restrictions on them – and the United States would be wise to follow their example.

Attached files [Image: 1996_3af5df914beb4cb93d5356bd9f60a9bc.png] [Image: 1996_a2edebe91fd1db507d906bab10e87ee6.png]
1. "Leave it to the pros": Kakšnim profesionalcem? Takšnim, ki trenirajo s 60 naboji na leto? Al takšnim, ki v povprečju trenirajo 2,5x na leto? ([url="http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/robert-farago/self-defense-tip-training-vs-experience/"]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/0 ... xperience/[/url]) Po kakšni logiki so bolj učinkoviti od civilista, ki trenira enako pogosto (po mojem mnenju bistveno premalo še za na tekme, kaj šele za samoobrambno uporabo orožja).
2. "The self-defense fallacy": Podatke iz drugih, z vidika kriminala fundamentalno drugačnih držav, bi kr direktno uporabljali za ameriške razmere? To, da ljudje pretiravajo, ker če ne bi, bi bile urgence polne kriminalcev, ni noben argument. A ni dost, da se odvrne napad? Kaj je tuki še pomembno: "kriminalec" je pripravljen tebe ubiti za dosego cilja, ni pa pripravljen sam umreti. Brez orožja mu druge opcije ne moreš ponuditi. Če hočeš imetu orožje, pomeni posest doma in pa dovoljenje za nošenje, oboje možno tudi v primeru licenciranja/registracije (kok je to dobra ideja je spet lahko svoja tema:)); ampak diskusija ne gre na temo, kako imeti nadzor nad orožjem, ampak kako prepovedati t.i. ''assault rifles''. "Sej bomo pustili lovsko in športno orožje". Kot da Ar-15 ne bi bil eden najbolj razširjenih tipov (najbolj razširjen?) orožja za omenjeni početji.
Naj še omenim (preden se najde ker provokator, pardon, komentator), da menim, da je orožje proti koncu spiska kar se tiče razmisleka o osebni varnosti (od tele "kupi pištolo/ar/pumpo, al pa še raje 2 pa bo vse ok" logike profitira (dobesedno:)) bolj omejen krog ljudi), a je hkrati edina možnost obrambe pred določenimi vrstami nasilja (več o tem zna stric google povedat, sam taprave linke je treba najt:)).
3. "Fewer guns than you think": to samo po sebi nič ne pomeni, je pa zaskrbljujoča ta ameriška praksa, da raje kupijo kakšen kos več, kot kakšno škatlo streliva več - to izjavo bi sicer kdo lahko označil za neumno posploševanje, vendar pa glede na spremljanje diskusij na ameriških forumih, menim, da ni daleč od resnice.

Kar je največji problem, z vidika lastnikov orožja je to, da marsikateri, predvsem glasnejši pro gun lobisti prodajajo podobne bučnice (ki se jih da fino diskreditirati) kot njihovi anti gun ekvivalenti in je zato neka resna razprava dosti težja.

Zaključil bi z mislijo, da je vseen kr dobro, dokler teli množični morilci uporabljajo z vidika časa relativno zahtevno metodo, ki se ji da v veliki meri tudi izognit; pač nek % žrtev je, ampak ob pravilnem obnašanju (ki ga pa nimamo brez izobraževanja v tej smeri - skrivanje po omarah, kotih in pod mizami je res dobra taktika, ja) nevarnost ni tako huda. Če se bo zaradi (česar se sicer ni za bati:)) regulacije toliko zmanjšal dostop do orožja psihičnim bolnikom, da bodo morali začeti razmišljati o bolj eksplozivnih rešitvah, bomo/bodo imeli dost hujši problem.
[url="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/19/1361521/top-conservative-publication-newtown-happened-because-women-ran-the-school/?mobile=nc"]http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/1 ... ?mobile=nc[/url]

ko so tole objavili, bi bilo zanimivo idet kako je završalo med feministkami ...
Citat:Kar je največji problem, z vidika lastnikov orožja je to, da marsikateri, predvsem glasnejši pro gun lobisti prodajajo podobne bučnice (ki se jih da fino diskreditirati) kot njihovi anti gun ekvivalenti in je zato neka resna razprava dosti težja.

Evo končno ,dočakali to ,da pro gun lobisti prodajajo bučke ,zaenkrat glede na to za so se zadnjih 10 let tam zakoni sproščali so bili glede bučk precej uspešnejši ,tale članek ki sem ga postal je anti-gun brez dvoma ampak vsebuje nekaj dejstev o orožju v Švici in Izraelu ,obe državi v ZDA zelo radi vrtijo kot uspešna primera držav kje ima vsak orožje ,kot lahko razbereš temu ni čisto tako ,tega da soldateski pobirajo orožje na izhodih iz kasarn tudi sam nisem vedel. Saj veš vsi vidimo poročila z fotkami na katerih je oboroženih full enih nabornikov a očitno samo tisti, ki so na 'šihtu' tisti trenutek tudi tist hec o izrelskih profesorjih ki nosijo M1 puške v razered ,to je mimo grede ta trenutek najbolj popularna pro gun izjava v zda in se kar naprej vrti da je to treba tudi v ZDA zgleda da ni čsito taka kot bi jo ti ameri radi predstavili, pa še treba je upoštevat ,da je Izrael 24/7 vojna cona .

Citat: "Leave it to the pros": Kakšnim profesionalcem? Takšnim, ki trenirajo s 60 naboji na leto? Al takšnim, ki v povprečju trenirajo 2,5x na leto?
Koliko lastnikv orožja v zda pa misliš ,da 'trenira' ,eno so športni strelci in recimo jagri a za precej folka je tisto orožje v najboljšem primeru za kako piksno počit tu in tam ,bumpfire kretenizme in podobno ,samo malo poglej ti tubo folk ima do orožje precej drugačen odnos ,še največ trenirajo zisti ki se pripravljajo na zombije [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_twisted.gif[/img] .
Mene pa zanima, koliko lastnikov orožja, ki orožje poseduje zaradi ogrožene varnosti tudi trenira za primer varnostne uporabe orožja [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_question.gif[/img]
Pri nas imajo so ugledni druzbeno-politicni delavci tudi dobili dovoljenje za prikrito nosenje pistol, pa jim ni bilo treba dokazati, da znajo z orozjem varno rokovati ali da so dobrega mentalnega zdravja.
Nihce ni nikoli trdil, da so le-ti varnostni problem.

Teza, s katero nas ze vsaj zadnjih 20 let pita Hollywood, da se lahko uspesno s strelnim orozjem brani le tajni agent tipa 007 in pa policist ter vojak, ne prenese preskusa stvarnosti.

STOJ ALI STRELJAM! (samoobrambna uporaba orozja, za katero nikoli niste izvedeli).
No ja od ke pa misliš da se POPovci učijo od amerov ti so teatralnost privedli do max.

Raje pripopaj NRA tiskovko kjer so sveda predlagali kaj neki oboroženega varnostnika v vsako šolo [img]{SMILIES_PATH}/extra_thumbup.gif[/img]


Citat:National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre argued that attempts to keep guns out of schools were ineffective and made schools more vulnerable than airports, banks and other public buildings patrolled by armed guards.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre told a news briefing, calling on lawmakers to station armed police officers in all schools by the time children return from the Christmas break in January.

Referring to the 20-year-old who entered Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14 and killed 26 people - 20 of them children aged 6 and 7 - with a semi-automatic assault rifle, LaPierre added: "Does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already identified at this very moment?"

Citat: the NRA may or may not actually believe that we should increase the supply of force at schools, but either way, Friday's contentious press conference wasn't really about substantive policy. Don't expect the NRA to be back after Christmas actively pushing this "arm our schools" campaign. And make no mistake — it is not a coincidence that the NRA waited until the ultimate "take out the trash" Friday — the one before Christmas week — to hold its press conference. By doing so, the NRA was able to speak directly to its hardline members while simultaneously limiting the amount of press coverage the substance of its message might otherwise have received.

The leaders at the NRA have two overriding concerns: Protecting themselves and their members from overzealous gun regulation, and making sure that they maintain their position as the primary representative of the gun rights community in America. Those two goals sometimes conflict, as they did today.

The NRA clearly has a big PR problem. In the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook shootings, the group is being portrayed as being led by crazy, unreasonable people who will not tolerate regulation of any kind, ever. That image is not one that is favorable to NRA's goal of ensuring that public opinion remains firmly against meaningful gun regulations. Of course, the NRA would much rather be seen by the broader public as reasonable representatives of hardworking Americans who merely wish to retain the ability to defend themselves.

At the same time, there are quite a few truly unreasonable people within the pro-gun movement who view any and all claims that the government has any right to regulate firearms as tantamount to war on all second amendment rights. This group of people is therefore hyper-sensitive to the NRA's public comments relating to gun regulation. If the NRA were to publicly welcome any additional regulation of firearms, a meaningful number of its dues-paying members would not only balk, they might in fact withdraw their support for the NRA and transfer it to an organization that supports the absolutist position on gun rights. Such a revolt would hurt the NRA and threaten its institutional power, which its leaders are not eager to see happen.

So the NRA's press event today was crafted to do two things: Reassure its most ardent members that it is not backing down AT ALL, while simultaneously ensuring that as few members of the broader public as humanly possible concentrate on this reality. Sure, Twitter temporarily exploded with outrage during the NRA press event. But by waiting until the Friday before Christmas week, the NRA managed to get its message out to the true believers while simultaneously ensuring that the coverage of the NRA response will never gain any traction with the public at large. Far fewer people focus on news during the weekend, and that is especially true when millions of Americans are traveling home to be with their families over Christmas. Pro-gun absolutists have been comforted. And most everyone else will have forgotten about today's event by New Year's.

Attached files [Image: 1996_22dcf3d62e1657a48a13eeeb243efc99.jpg]
In pa oboroženega z 20 kilsko BR flinto in šraufštokom, da bo napadalca 100% zadel. Drugače lahko nastane collateral damage. Kill zone je 0.2 MOA.
Če se prav spominjam, se je nasilje pojavljalo tudi v slovenskih šolah, pa so za varovanje naših šol najeli varnostnike. V čem je problem? Je strošek najema zasebnega varnostnika za varovanje šole prevelik, glede na to da so v Afganistanu cele armade ameriških privat "varnostnikov" ...

Uporabnikov, ki berejo to temo: 1 Gost(ov)