Gun ownership up, crime down

  • Thread starter Thread starter SamH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? Enlighten me. I’ll ignore the 3 years that I lived in Sicily and talked with the Carabinieri about it.
Just watch the daily news from the Italian television or read the news from the papers. Family members are targets especially in , but not limited to, the case of people that testify against the different crime organizations. There is a list of at least 150 women killed or forced to kill themselves because of inter/intra family feuds. What about 37 children killed in 10 years? What about he Mafia blowing up a whole train of innocent people during Christmas time to divert the attention of the investigators toward alleged terrorists?
 
Just watch the daily news from the Italian television or read the news from the papers. Family members are targets especially in , but not limited to, the case of people that testify against the different crime organizations. There is a list of at least 150 women killed or forced to kill themselves because of inter/intra family feuds. What about 37 children killed in 10 years? What about he Mafia blowing up a whole train of innocent people during Christmas time to divert the attention of the investigators toward alleged terrorists?
Someone is able to resume the 2500 years history of Sicily so that we may understand better the Mafia?

Or why Mafia was not born in Milan, Genoa or Venetia ?

We are not talking about the teenager USA which has 200 years of existence. Any comparison with Sicily is pure coincidence !
 
I think more of america should arm themselves to not only protect themselves but their neighborhood as well. Its time to take back what has been taken away by fear and liberal america. The second amendment gives us that right and it wont be tolerated when people try to take it away!
Arm with what?
You know drug dealers have got machine guns, submarines, airplanes, grenades, whatever.
So, every citizen should be armed with what kind of weapons?
I am curious about the answer.
 
Just watch the daily news from the Italian television or read the news from the papers. Family members are targets especially in , but not limited to, the case of people that testify against the different crime organizations. There is a list of at least 150 women killed or forced to kill themselves because of inter/intra family feuds. What about 37 children killed in 10 years? What about he Mafia blowing up a whole train of innocent people during Christmas time to divert the attention of the investigators toward alleged terrorists?
Do you know Sicily history? Why is it so that Mafia appeared in Sicily and not in North Italy, which produces Ferraris, Bugattis, Lamborghinis?
 
Arm with what?
You know drug dealers have got machine guns, submarines, airplanes, grenades, whatever.
So, every citizen should be armed with what kind of weapons?
I am curious about the answer.
If they are law abiding why not?
 
Someone is able to resume the 2500 years history of Sicily so that we may understand better the Mafia?

Or why Mafia was not born in Milan, Genoa or Venetia ?

We are not talking about the teenager USA which has 200 years of existence. Any comparison with Sicily is pure coincidence !
As everybody would expect things are never simple. First you must remember that Italy became a unified country in 1860 and before that it was divided in different states with different cultures different governments and they were also invaded by different enemies. For example the culture of Genova, Venezia, Pisa, and Amalfi is different because they were maritime republics and so their finances and power came from controlling the Mediterranean waters, they had not major interests for power through the local land owners. A second thing that you should also consider that Americans tend to think of Mafia as an unchangeable form of organized crime and that is not true. The biggest change came from the Italian immigration to the USA, the Italians were practically the only population going back and forth between the two countries and they brought a lot of change in learned criminal behaviors from the USA, organized crime already existed in the USA. Third when Americans think of organized crime in Italy they think only of the historical mafia and that is incorrect too. Even if we exclude the Russian mafia, the Chinese mafia, and other eastern European elements that are recent imports in Italy, we still have different organizations like Camorra that developed in the area near Naples, The Sacra Corona Unita from Puglie and then we have the 'Ndrangheta from Calabria. At present the 'Ndrangheta is the most dangerous one, it is all over Italy (e.g. Milan) and quite spread across Europe too (e.g. Germany). 'Ndrangheta has strong business affiliations with South American cartels and they are so violent that Colombians and Mexicans are afraid of them. My take is that the past history of Sicily and of the Mafia are not useful to understand the present organized crime behaviors, now it is easier to understand how international corporations work to see how the crime families can expand and act, those criminals can be really nasty people but they are not stupid at all.
 
As everybody would expect things are never simple. First you must remember that Italy became a unified country in 1860 and before that it was divided in different states with different cultures different governments and they were also invaded by different enemies. For example the culture of Genova, Venezia, Pisa, and Amalfi is different because they were maritime republics and so their finances and power came from controlling the Mediterranean waters, they had not major interests for power through the local land owners. A second thing that you should also consider that Americans tend to think of Mafia as an unchangeable form of organized crime and that is not true. The biggest change came from the Italian immigration to the USA, the Italians were practically the only population going back and forth between the two countries and they brought a lot of change in learned criminal behaviors from the USA, organized crime already existed in the USA. Third when Americans think of organized crime in Italy they think only of the historical mafia and that is incorrect too. Even if we exclude the Russian mafia, the Chinese mafia, and other eastern European elements that are recent imports in Italy, we still have different organizations like Camorra that developed in the area near Naples, The Sacra Corona Unita from Puglie and then we have the 'Ndrangheta from Calabria. At present the 'Ndrangheta is the most dangerous one, it is all over Italy (e.g. Milan) and quite spread across Europe too (e.g. Germany). 'Ndrangheta has strong business affiliations with South American cartels and they are so violent that Colombians and Mexicans are afraid of them. My take is that the past history of Sicily and of the Mafia are not useful to understand the present organized crime behaviors, now it is easier to understand how international corporations work to see how the crime families can expand and act, those criminals can be really nasty people but they are not stupid at all.
Mafia was the only unifying power in Sicily which was occupied by all kinds of reigns for hundreds of years, beginning by the Greeks before Christ who called it “Magna graecia” for its bounty.

Mafia ruled and the Kings wanted to rule but kings came and went and Mafia Stayed. NOw, it is hare for them to go, now that Italy is a State but they must go for their ways are rude and not deadly.

The only way is imposition of the Italian State. But inside the Italian State, Mafia spread its tentacles. It will take some take to get rid of it but in the End Italy must win. The Story of changing rules over Sicily is gone.
 
If they are law abiding why not?
Which is “they”? An aircraft carrier? A knife?
It is you who make the laws. Do you approve the use of heavy weaponry but individuals? For instance, a portable atomic bomb? If lawful, this can be used? Do you reach this unbelievable affirmation?
 
Which is “they”? An aircraft carrier? A knife?
It is you who make the laws. Do you approve the use of heavy weaponry but individuals? For instance, a portable atomic bomb? If lawful, this can be used? Do you reach this unbelievable affirmation?
Most of your post makes no sense but I give it a try. Why not allow heavy weaponry to be owned by individuals? After all, who uses them in the armed forces?
 
Sorry, I do not believe that.
Now, you have a fight at home: there are no guns. The outcome will be some bruises or some cuts.
The same with guns: someone may get killed.

Knowing human nature as I know and simply perusing newspapers, you see that domestic fights ending in murder with guns are more than many. You seldom see a domestic fights end in death without guns.

I mean, let’s face it: defense or attack, guns are not intended to picnic. They are intended to kill. Guns are not the same thing as sticks, mustard powder, stunning guns, Judo and other defense systems that I do not bother to quote. Guns are intended to go to the throat, to kill.

Obviously, with easy to access guns, criminals do not bother to go through difficult ways to buy a gun. They have an easy way.

Besides, normal citizens are armed with guns which do not defend from the heavy weaponry that criminals have.

And let’s forget hunting, that was not what we were talking about.
Most domestic injury and deaths are done with kitchen knives or other heave objects. Hence why we are thought to keep the couple separated and away from the kitchen.
 
Most domestic injury and deaths are done with kitchen knives or other heave objects. Hence why we are thought to keep the couple separated and away from the kitchen.
Of course most fights are with fits But …
That means nothing. What means is the percentage (%) of fights that end in death with heavy objects or knives and with guns.
That is a real and scientific comparison, not the total.
 
Most of your post makes no sense but I give it a try. Why not allow heavy weaponry to be owned by individuals? After all, who uses them in the armed forces?
I thought it made sense.
Maybe you are not aware that the type of “arms” (that is the words of the 2nd amendment, not guns) may the individual carry is discussed in several parliaments in the USA. I do not whether you are aware of it.
Second: you seem not to know that no individual may use ammunition without any order: pilots of aircraft, helicopters, gunships, and even soldiers, I do not know whether you know, have “rules of engagement” that tell them what to do. When England reconquered the Falklands, the soldiers went up a mountain without returning fire so that their position not be revealed. That give them victory but cost 70 and so lives. An atomic bomb may sent only with many consents and there are 2 keys that may fire it, and the keys are in possession of the President and someone else very different.
It seems that you are ill informed. But, OK, nevertheless I gave a try explaining to you.
 
I thought it made sense.
Maybe you are not aware that the type of “arms” (that is the words of the 2nd amendment, not guns) may the individual carry is discussed in several parliaments in the USA. I do not whether you are aware of it.
Second: you seem not to know that no individual may use ammunition without any order: pilots of aircraft, helicopters, gunships, and even soldiers, I do not know whether you know, have “rules of engagement” that tell them what to do. When England reconquered the Falklands, the soldiers went up a mountain without returning fire so that their position not be revealed. That give them victory but cost 70 and so lives. An atomic bomb may sent only with many consents and there are 2 keys that may fire it, and the keys are in possession of the President and someone else very different.
It seems that you are ill informed. But, OK, nevertheless I gave a try explaining to you.
Hi Andre. I’m not sure which country you’re talking about here, but I can walk into my local firing range and buy ammunition without a problem.
 
I thought it made sense.
Maybe you are not aware that the type of “arms” (that is the words of the 2nd amendment, not guns) may the individual carry is discussed in several parliaments in the USA. I do not whether you are aware of it.
There is no question that the Second Amendment is talking about firearms.

George Washington: * “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” *

Patrick Henry :“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

What do you think the founders meant by “arms”?

Jon
 
There is no question that the Second Amendment is talking about firearms.

George Washington: * “Firearms* stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”

Patrick Henry :"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

What do you think the founders meant by “arms”?

Jon
Are you quoting People or the 2nd amendment?
The 2nd amendment is one thing, the writings of People are valueless, are not Law.

The Founders meant by “arms” this:


(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
[IMG ]http://frenchandindianwar.info/drill.jpg[/IMG]


Now, today, New York, United Nations Plaza, that is what the World thinks after Hiroshima and Nagasaqui:


We are in the XVIII century no more.
 
=andremiguel;9444096]Are you quoting People or the 2nd amendment?
The 2nd amendment is one thing, the writings of People are valueless, are not Law.
Unless those people are the founders, who wrote it, and the Supreme Court, which twice in the last few years - Heller, then MacDonald - upheld the individual right to own firearms …
The Founders meant by “arms” this:
…modern day firearms.
We are in the XVIII century no more.
True. So the individual right to keep and bare arms, not only antecedes government power, but also is not limited to a particular time in history. Hence, the right to keep and bare arms applies to all law-abiding Americans, and applies to modern weapons.
Now, today, New York, United Nations Plaza, that is what the World thinks after Hiroshima and Nagasaqui:
AndI agree, except that had we not used the Atom bombs, my uncle would have been part of the Japanese mainland invasion force. I happen to love my cousins very much.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top