Charity at gun point

[St_Francis]

Possibly because while food and medicine are bare necessities of life, comfortable living space is considered nonessential; and some resent being forced to buy nonessentials for “The Poor”?

ICXC NIKA

Thats the point. Thanks for the short version.

Ok, now I understand…

If you live in a tent on relatively “unused” land, you are considered homeless. You may be harrassed and arrested.

If you live in a house without electricity or indoor plumbing, the government can send peiple to condemn the house and get you out.

A lot of places have residency standards, like no more than 5 unrelated people can live in one house; bedrooms have size standards, etc.

Now, this may seem odd, but people need enough air in their bedroom and flat. If the place is pretty airtight (environmental stuff), and they have any sort of problem, the less air they have the more likely they are to suffocate. Of course, if there is a really bad problem, they will suffocate anyway.

I knew someone who died like this–something fell into his flue and so the bad air that was supposed to go up his flue didn’t. And every year we hear about entire families dying when using kerosene heaters and the like.

So, what with this and that, I suspect that the reason these rules are in place for all resdences in some areas of Germany, and so these are the standards used in social services so they don’t have to know the precise rules of every locality.

So this is not really a charitable thing, but just to keep the government from paying for flats which are illegally occupied, which would be embarrassing for the government, and to make it easier on the bureaucrats involved.

Here in the US, the health insurance that the poor get for free covers way more than most health insurance policies people pay for themselves or get through their employment. So a poor person can get things through the government which less poor people cannot afford at all. That’s kind of a similar problem, I think, to what you are talking about.

And some of the people here who cannot afford health insurance can’t afford it because of the many and very expensive things the government requires be covered, like 28-day stays at rehabs for substance abuse.

 

[Hastrman]

(Though they are not allowed to shoot to kill, but shooting just too harm sometimes fails.)

Nobody can shoot just to harm. If guns are out, lethal force is in use. Second rule of gun safety is “never point a gun at something you aren’t willing to destroy”.

All police, anywhere, the world over, if they’re shooting, are aiming at center of mass, and, admittedly, their intention is to make the opponent stop, not to kill him. But any gunshot wound sufficient to stop any animal, including a human, has a very good chance of killing him.

There are stupid lawsuits all the time because people think the stuff they see in movies is real. You can’t shoot just to wound someone. Aside from the fact that even wounds in the limbs can be fatal (the shoulder, for instance, despite what they show in movies, is a frequently-fatal area to be shot in), aiming at an extremity is far too likely to result in a miss, which threatens innocent bystanders. All police, except for snipers (who have leisure to set up their shots that other cops don’t), are aiming at the center of the torso, just to maximize the chance of hitting. Unfortunately two of the things that are located there are the heart and lungs, so again, gunshot wounds are likely to be fatal.