There were some forty people on the bus. Demoor asked the “youths” to calm down, whereupon they turned on him, savagely beating and kicking the man. At the next stop thirty passengers fled the bus. The thugs kept beating Demoor. They then pulled the emergency brake and jumped from the bus leaving their victim to die.
...
Belgians do not have a constitutional or legal right to bear arms, not even purely defensive arms such as peppersprays. With the police and the government failing to protect law-abiding citizens the latter are, however, totally unprotected.
Yes, but that allows them to act oh so superior to the stoopid Ricain cowboys. I'd rather have the Second Amendment.
Posts
16 comments:
I don't see what one has to do with the other - would the outcome have been any different if there were a 2nd amendment in Belgium ?
Maybe yes, maybe no -- if the bus driver had some means to defend himself, or if some of those 40 passengers had some guts to come to his rescue, maube the poor guy would still be alive now. As is, people there don't even have the right to carry Mace, let alone a Magnum, to defend themselves if attacked. Thus, they either surrender (the default French solution), flee, or get slaughtered. The police simply washes its hands. Nice, huh? Makes you want to move to Anvers, right?
An update: the police cared enough to catch the perps. But still, the underlying problem remains. And it won't get any better, that;s for sure.
But then maybe the killers would have had guns too... I don't see how the 2nd amendment protects anyone - the comparison of murder rates in the USA with those in Western Europe settles that point IMO.
One interesting exception is Switzerland where every male has to own a gun (for military duty) and murder rate is very low. But there, we are talking about almost a different species...
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...
At any rate, just because nobody has guns, it doesn't mean nobody gets killed, or badly hurt, on a routine basis: the outlaws will just gang up, and attack people like this poor bus driver, with sticks, or stones, or simply bare knuckles. Or, as in France, they will run rampage and torch everything in sight, periodically. The Euros will dutifully put their heads in the sand, perhaps cite some bogus statistics to feel superior the despised Américains, and meekly take it on the chin. Is there a solution to all this? No, I think we are long past. Of course, the Europeans will never get a Second Amendment (one of the prides and joys of our Bill of Rights, the one that Liberals really hate in their guts), and anyhow, they would not know what to do with it.
By the way, there was an eerily similar murder in Brussels a couple of months ago. I betcha no self-respecting bien-pensant Euro will find any common thread whatsoever between the two murders. It's all random, don't worry, be happy, keep moving on, the Nanny State has everything under control.
>At any rate, just because nobody has guns, it doesn't mean nobody gets killed, or badly hurt, on a routine basis
Agreed. But it sure makes it harder.
>>Or, as in France, they will run rampage and torch everything in sight, periodically.
Good point: only one death during this ordeal. Can you imagine the consequences if these morons had open access to guns ?
>>The Euros will dutifully put their heads in the sand, perhaps cite some bogus statistics to feel superior the despised Américains, and meekly take it on the chin.
That's not the point. We really do not pass laws just to be different fromn the americans, you know...
You see no correlation between the differences in murder rates and free access to guns ?
I don't have the gun fetish of the Liberal intelligentsia. Crime is crime -- people kill people, not guns. Knifes or sticks or other objects can kill almost as easily. OK, there may be a correlation between murder rates and easy availabilty of guns -- that's why we need stringent controls and waiting periods for gun-buying (and most states have such stringent laws on the books, and do enforce them). But that's just one of many means people bent on mayhem do it.
And the crime rate in Bruxelles is getting worse -- I was reading it's 5 times higher than in Paris, which must say something. Having one of the most stringent gun-control (and even pepper-spray control!) laws in the world doesn't help. Maybe, just maybe, there are other factors at work? Naahhh, the Socialist dogma says it's guns that kill people (just like that, by some magic), and that's that.
>>Knifes or sticks or other objects can kill almost as easily.
I beg to differ on this. Is there even a need to argue this point ?
>>Naahhh, the Socialist dogma says it's guns that kill people (just like that, by some magic), and that's that.
come on man, you can't continue to reduce everything to commie/liberal confusion.
OK, I will refrain for a little while from picking on commie/liberal dogma. But then, I'm interested to hear why guns are so important in the Euro imagery of supposed ills of America. After all, people have been killing each other with abandon since time immemorial -- well, since Cain hit Abel over the head with a stone. Methinks the evil impulse behind the act is much more important to understand (and hopefully counteract), than the relatively trivial distinction between the means by which it is being carried out. Am I missing something?
Another horrible crime in Belgium. No guns involved. Does it make it trivial?
>>But then, I'm interested to hear why guns are so important in the Euro imagery of supposed ills of America.
I think the main concern is that indiscriminate gun ownership gives anyone the power of life or death over anyone else.
The argument that the criminal justice system takes care of the problem is also not very convincing: vaults deter bank robbers at least as much as jail time.
Naturally, to some extent, people kill people. But i am much less likely to cause irreparable damage armed with my swiss army knife than with a semi-automatic pistol.
Atta boy did much more damage armed only with a box cutter.
I still don't understand the Liberal fixation with guns. I'm not at all an expert -- in fact, I never even touched one in my life -- but I don't hyperventilate about them, like all the Maureen Down wanabees. Maybe it has something to do with the long barrel?
atta boy wouldn't have done much harm with his box cutter alone. the airplane helped quite a bit.
>>I still don't understand the Liberal fixation with guns.
i thought i addressed that question in my previous post. The fact that any bozo can be armed and use his/her weapon with token oversight is unsettling.
in other words I don't like the idea of anyone being physically able to shoot at me. I don't think this is a liberal/pinko/commie thing.
C'mon, not everyone can buy a gun -- there are stringent laws that control the sale of guns. Just look it up. On the other hand, there is that much laws can do -- criminals will find ways to get guns, no matter what. So what's the solution? No perfect solution, just get tough on the perps, and execute them is they commit a crime using a gun. But of course, that's too "simplistoc" for the bleeding heart Liberals, who would let all criminals walk free. Aahhh, the twisted logic of the left. Never could figure it out...
Post a Comment