Why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world

[Traak]

Knowing that every single home in the country has an assault rifle and ammunition in it might help deter people from crime?

Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World - YouTube

[Effective]

While it is indeed a relatively peaceful country.

There are 15 countries that rank higher on the GPI currently, and most of them have lower homicide/murder rates.

[Warborn]

Crime is very much a byproduct of poverty and other social ills. Whether there are guns or not in people's homes doesn't seem to matter. The USA has more guns per person than any other country on the planet, and its overall crime rate, and especially homicide rate, are pathetic compared to France or Canada or places where there are far fewer guns per person. I am not aware of any evidence to support the idea that firearm possession actually deters crime.

[CutterJohn]

Switzerland is a safe place because its got a nice culture with little poverty. Poverty is, by far, the greatest indicator of violent crime. When everyone is warm, content, well fed, and without serious worries about money, there is not a lot of crime.

I concede the guns may help a small bit, though.

[Firefly]

I agree. Guns only help a small amount. I know gun-owners who have been robbed, gun owners who have had their weapon/s stolen.

And now let me think like Traak, Westboro's Finest (thank you Effective for that moniker), would think:

Black people live in the projects. The projects are full of gangs. Gang members own guns. The projects are full of guns and drive-by shootings. And black people. Who commit crimes. So since there are guns in the projects, and there is crime, guns must not be a 100%, or even 50%, deterrent against crime.

[Vecha]

Yeah...I think jobs and working on poverty would do a bit more to help lower crime rate than giving everyone a free 9mm.

[starshine]

take away all guns from all civilians and the criminals would start using knives and machetes.

crime has to be solved at its root which is just lack of money/jobs or the lack of an ability to get jobs (coz of bad education for example).

[starshine]

take away all guns from all civilians and the criminals would start using knives and machetes.

crime has to be solved at its root which is just lack of money/jobs or the lack of an ability to get jobs (coz of bad education for example).

[Noivad]

You all miss the point. Guns in the hands of a populace do not only deter crimes comitted by people. Guns deter the crimes comitted by a Nation. Take away the Guns from a populace, which are of course one of the the 1st things to go when a country is taken over by an opressive government. Lose your Guns and you lose your right as a people who are governed to stop an opressive government.

This is only 1 example of of Guns that deter crime.

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Note: This link projects 2012 Crime Rate for Kennesaw.

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html

[Warborn]

If a populace attempts to fight its government with weapons these days, what you get is something like what Libya got, or what Syria is getting. An even semi-modern military can massacre civilians armed with little more than automatic rifles, RPGs, and maybe some light vehicles. Unless you're advocating a civilian population allow itself to be outfitted with attack helicopters and artillery pieces, you are quite literally at the mercy of your government whether you have a bunch of guns in your closet or not.

In fact, being armed probably makes your situation worse. Your fellow countrymen will be reluctant to shoot you if you're unarmed and no threat to them, even if they're ordered to do so. But if you fight back, you make it that much easier for them to dehumanize you and see you as simply the enemy rather than fellow citizens.

The dream of the citizen body being a military check against government oppression ended when the days of wars being fought by lines of infantry standing around shooting guns at them ended. If England only colonized North America at the outset of this millennium, and the American colonies attempted to revolt against the modern United Kingdom, they would be stomped flat in an instant. The days of the Second Amendment being something relevant have long since ended.

[Noivad]

If a populace attempts to fight its government with weapons these days, what you get is something like what Libya got, or what Syria is getting. An even semi-modern military can massacre civilians armed with little more than automatic rifles, RPGs, and maybe some light vehicles. Unless you're advocating a civilian population allow itself to be outfitted with attack helicopters and artillery pieces, you are quite literally at the mercy of your government whether you have a bunch of guns in your closet or not.

In fact, being armed probably makes your situation worse. Your fellow countrymen will be reluctant to shoot you if you're unarmed and no threat to them, even if they're ordered to do so. But if you fight back, you make it that much easier for them to dehumanize you and see you as simply the enemy rather than fellow citizens.

The dream of the citizen body being a military check against government oppression ended when the days of wars being fought by lines of infantry standing around shooting guns at them ended. If England only colonized North America at the outset of this millennium, and the American colonies attempted to revolt against the modern United Kingdom, they would be stomped flat in an instant. The days of the Second Amendment being something relevant have long since ended.

Tell that to the people of North Vietnam when the United States tried to defeat them with modern weapons. Tell that to the Affgans when the then modern Russians invaded their country and left in defeat. Tell that to the people of the United States, whose fore fathers fought against a Britsh Empire. The days of the 2nd ammendant have not ended, except perhaps those who would lay their freedoms down for free stuff from a government that wants to control every aspect of their life.

A government that is benevolent does not fear its citzens with guns. A government that is opressive does.

These people who fight for their freedom against governments that opress them by your reasoning will be stomped out. Fellow countryman as you call them have never had a problem stomping out those they sought to control.
These people may lose. They may be stomped out. Especially when free societies fail to help those that are opressed. :evil:

[Warborn]

Afghanistan and Vietnam are instances where a tenacious guerrilla campaign in very difficult terrain made continuing the invasion not worth the effort for the invading forces. Neither of those have anything to do with what we're talking about. A more accurate assessment is, as I said, Libya or Syria. Places where the government was or is at war with a portion of its population. It is a blood bath on the side of the civilians, and these are countries whose military is much weaker than what most Western countries have.

No Western country has anything to fear from its population militarily. Giving civilians firearms has nothing to do with keeping the government under control. It is a piece of foolishness to suggest that people have guns in their homes these days has anything to do with that.

[Figment]

Uhm, the Viet Cong was an organized guerilla army supplied and supported by the USSR and China alike. A jungle war is also not exactly to be compared with US mainland war, if only for the mosquitos. Except for Alabama/Florida maybe.

The Mujahadeen won mostly because the CIA provided them with weapons far more powerful than small fire arms... and kinda fostered their religious fury... Either way, do you support people to have RPGs and bazookas in their houses? (And no, WoW is bad enough, but not that type of RPG).

The fledgling US had an organized militia and trained officers and were almost defeated despite of mostly facing British Loyalist militia. In fact... had they not been declared traitors, they may not even have created their own nation... The USA 'won' the revolutionary war because Spain, France and the Dutch Republic entered the war on the side of US (and supplied them with much better arms than they had at first) and even threatened to invade England. Which... kinda had priority over some colonies not to mention that the logistics were kinda hard for the Brits, getting troops across the Atlantic in large numbers and all.

So no, the right to bear arms has little to do with that.

[Firefly]

I as an American soldier would not have in the past, nor in the present, nor in the future, ever fired upon an armed United States citizen in the event that the civilian populace ever decided to revolt given the current political climate. REGARDLESS of what side I was on. This has been discussed behind closed doors amongst friends during a drinking session in the barracks more times than I can count, on more installations than I can count.

And in truth, I would join the rebellion if I felt that it was justified.

[Figment]

I as an American soldier would not have in the past, nor in the present, nor in the future, ever fired upon an armed United States citizen in the event that the civilian populace ever decided to revolt given the current political climate. REGARDLESS of what side I was on. This has been discussed behind closed doors amongst friends during a drinking session in the barracks more times than I can count, on more installations than I can count.

And in truth, I would join the rebellion if I felt that it was justified.

But you would fire on unarmed citizens?

[Firefly]

... really?

[Figment]

... really?

Well if you just said citizen, sure, but, you said armed citizen specifically, so apparently there's something special about the fact that they're armed. In fact, you also specifically said "US citizen", again as if there's a difference. So, if they wern't US, you'd fire on citizens, armed or unarmed sooner? :p Otherwise you might as well just have said "citizen".

Just clearing things up here to see if there's actually a point made that has to do with them bearing arms or their "right" to bear arms in the US. >.> Because if you just wouldn't fire on a (US) rebel, then the point is kinda moot if they got weapons or not.

[Figment]

Some fun facts on gun crime:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

http://portent.org/cnns-interactive-world-gun-crime-map/

EDIT: note that both wealthy and non-wealthy areas with strict gun laws are low in gun crime (including Chili). Meanwhile areas with high gun crime, are either a warzone or have high drug related crime, but the most common factor is that wealth is low (Russia, Mexico) and guns are easy to get by. While the medium nations are often ex-war zones (former Yugoslavia) where guns are still present and nations with a big disparity in wealth, but a large populace that is wealthier (for instance the US, unlike say Columbia, where only the elite is wealthy). Basically, a larger wealthier populace reduces average gun crime.

So as a conclusion... the best way to reduce gun crime, is to remove guns. To remove a lot of 'need' for crime itself, the state of living needs to be improved.

[Firefly]

I'm honestly not trying to be rude but if I wouldn't fire on an armed citizen, what makes you think, by any stretch of rational logic, that I'd fire on an unarmed citizen?

[Figment]

I'm honestly not trying to be rude but if I wouldn't fire on an armed citizen, what makes you think, by any stretch of rational logic, that I'd fire on an unarmed citizen?

I know that, that's the point: you apparently wouldn't fire anyway, armed or not. I wanted to make sure you realised it.

Was checking if you'd realise that it's far less likely government troops would fire at unarmed citizens that would be protesting. So "protection from the government" is a bad reason to carry arms. Your personal ethics would prevent you from firing either way, potentially more so if they are unarmed. So exactly who do they need to fire guns at, if not the soldiers or police who refuse to fire?

Do the civilians need to fire at the clerics in office buildings? Do the civilians have the right to bear guillotines to simply publically execute people anyone related to the government of the time? Do they have the right to just fire at anyone they don't like at that point? Does the right to bear arms come with the right to have lynching parties of random or specific groups of individuals, including those supporting or working for the government?


In fact, going back to the situation of an armed civilian (mob) which you refuse to fire at. If an armed mob or just a protesting mob comes down the street. How close do you think they'd be allowed to get to a group of soldiers before ONE of them (not you) gets nervous enough to open fire or even an officer is ordered to open fire?

I'm quite sure the non-gun toting group would not be considered as physically threatening and would be allowed to even get to what, arms length? (See random protests). A gun toting group that would not be allowed to come as close, would probably largely wear disguises and look like anarchists. Which means it wouldn't be as personal targets and a non-personal target is easier to fire at than someone at bayonet range, even more so if they look don't look particualrly innocent. Furthermore, since a portion of this crowd would definitely use the opportunity to riot and loot and such a group would definitely be kept at distance with tear gas, water canons, rubber bullets, if not actual weapons fire etc.

Crowd mentality for people with arms is also far more dangerous and can have far more serious consequences.




So what I'm basically asking is, what is your point?

[Firefly]

My point should have been clear - I, as a professional soldier, would not engage US citizens on US soil unless they chose to fire the first shot, at which point I am obligated to defend myself and the troops who serve under or alongside me. THE END.

As for the other stuff you posted: "How close do you think they'd be allowed to get to a group of soldiers before ONE of them (not you) gets nervous enough to open fire or even an officer is ordered to open fire?"

Very simple. Rules of Engagement dictate what American soldiers are authorised to do. A good leader keeps his or her calm and keeps order and discipline. Code of conduct aside, let me tell you what I know from personal experience.

I stood in a crowd of thousands of angry Iraqis as a platoon sergeant. Between me and my protectee was a very thin wall of armed and probably frightened soldiers. A sum total of about eighteen of them, none of them past their mid-20s. That was what separated us from very pissed off locals, some of whom were visibly armed, many of whom could have very well been concealing a weapon. I'll tell you something else - this crowd was on pretty much all sides, just outside of arm's reach. In that situation, when the screaming angry mob of righteously indignant people in their own land are facing down a handful of armed invaders, what would YOU do?

I know what I did. I stayed on my platoon's squirrel net. I kept my troops calm. I kept my protectee in arm's reach. I kept my finger out of the trigger well but my weapon was locked and loaded. I talked my guys through it even though at any moment one of those pissed-off Iraqis could have done more than scream at us. We all walked off that mission safe and sound, with a grateful protectee. Not a shot was fired.

So what would I do when faced with a pissed-off crowd of Americans on our own soil? Keep my calm and engage only when that was the absolute last option - meaning, when the other side has chosen violence. I'm not a policeman, I'm a soldier. I take pride in my profession. My mission isn't to serve and protect the public trust or enforce the laws - it's to defend the nation and it's people. Understood?

[Figment]

Quite, I am however wondering how this is related to the topic. No offense meant btw, great respect for people serving under such stressful conditions. :)

[WildGunsTomcat]

I as an American soldier would not have in the past, nor in the present, nor in the future, ever fired upon an armed United States citizen in the event that the civilian populace ever decided to revolt given the current political climate. REGARDLESS of what side I was on. This has been discussed behind closed doors amongst friends during a drinking session in the barracks more times than I can count, on more installations than I can count.

And in truth, I would join the rebellion if I felt that it was justified.

Thank you.

Warborn seems to have this misconception that the US Military is full of mindless drones that serve its government master.

The reality is soldiers = citizens.

When you take guns away from the citizens the US Government has nothing to fear anymore.

And if you think a revolt/revolution wouldn't stand a chance Warborn....well...quite frankly you sound like the British circa 1770. Look what happened to them. They had superior numbers/firepower and they got stomped by men with an ideal. Twice.

[Effective]

And if you think a revolt/revolution wouldn't stand a chance Warborn....well...quite frankly you sound like the British circa 1770. Look what happened to them. They had superior numbers/firepower and they got stomped by men with an ideal. Twice.

You do know that America had outside assistance in winning that war right (that wasn't obviously everything, but it helped a lot more then people like to give credit for)?

There is no guarantee that American citizens would get that kind of outside help, against it's own legitimate government. I doubt another country would attempt to smuggle us arms/ammunition etc without good cause.

And the majority of american soldiers won't rebel against the government unless the rebels have a legitimate case to do so.

[Figment]

The reality is soldiers = citizens.

When you take guns away from the citizens the US Government has nothing to fear anymore.

...did you just state that the US government has no army to oppress citizens with, since they ARE citizens and would not fire on them?

Thank you for argueing that the US citizens do not need firearms to take on the US army.

And if you think a revolt/revolution wouldn't stand a chance Warborn....well...quite frankly you sound like the British circa 1770. Look what happened to them. They had superior numbers/firepower and they got stomped by men with an ideal. Twice.

That's not true... The UK army in the Americas was very small and mostly consisted of loyalist militia. They also had to contend with a naval and potential invasion of the UK by three major and wealthy continental powers: Spain, France and the Netherlands.

[ItsTheSheppy]

It's interesting to me how debates about gun control always devolve into wild conspiracy theories that make everyone look like lunatics. It doesn't inspire confidence in me that people are 'responsible gun owners' if, when pressed, start raving about fending off tanks with a 9mm.

Crime is a byproduct of poverty.

Poverty is a product of social inequality, lackadaisical economy, and shoddy education.

There is a significant lack of compelling evidence that widespread gun ownership is a crime deterrent.

I'm amazed the argument progresses further than that.

[WildGunsTomcat]

...did you just state that the US government has no army to oppress citizens with, since they ARE citizens and would not fire on them?

Thank you for argueing that the US citizens do not need firearms to take on the US army.



That's not true... The UK army in the Americas was very small and mostly consisted of loyalist militia. They also had to contend with a naval and potential invasion of the UK by three major and wealthy continental powers: Spain, France and the Netherlands.

I find it interesting that you took away from what I said that I was saying we don't need guns.

Debating with you people on here is like beating your head against a brick wall. A very liberal, self righteous, and YOUNG brick wall.

What I mean is, Warborn said that an armed US population would not make a dent in case of a revolution because the US Government would have troops at their command to squash a rebellion.

I simply TRIED to state that the US Military isn't a nameless, faceless group of robots that simply kill on command, and that if ordered to kill civvies...they would take umbrage with it and possibly join the rebellion in direct response to that order.

Don't read too much into things guy.

[WildGunsTomcat]

You do know that America had outside assistance in winning that war right (that wasn't obviously everything, but it helped a lot more then people like to give credit for)?

There is no guarantee that American citizens would get that kind of outside help, against it's own legitimate government. I doubt another country would attempt to smuggle us arms/ammunition etc without good cause.

And the majority of american soldiers won't rebel against the government unless the rebels have a legitimate case to do so.

I'm very well aware that we had French and Spanish assistance during the war. They had a vested interest in kicking the shit out of England.

But I think you're wrong about the soldiers not joining the cause.

I've had many conversations with soldier friends of mine over a beer and almost all of them say "Fuck the government if it came to a rebellion."

Admittedly though...they were drunk. :lol:

[Figment]

I find it interesting that you took away from what I said that I was saying we don't need guns.

Debating with you people on here is like beating your head against a brick wall. A very liberal, self righteous, and YOUNG brick wall.

What I mean is, Warborn said that an armed US population would not make a dent in case of a revolution because the US Government would have troops at their command to squash a rebellion.

I simply TRIED to state that the US Military isn't a nameless, faceless group of robots that simply kill on command, and that if ordered to kill civvies...they would take umbrage with it and possibly join the rebellion in direct response to that order.

Don't read too much into things guy.

And that is exactly one reason why I am stating you don't need guns to protect against the government. Who are you going to use these guns on, if not the opposition with guns (ie. the military)?

So the point is, a protest without guns or violence is equally effective, if not more because nobody is directly threatened and won't have any need or means to oppress using violence in a civilized state where the masses, including the military are somewhat educated and free thinking.


Again, WHERE EXACTLY is the need for guns to protect against the government coming from? Nobody here seems to have an answer for it. Therefore I can but conclude that the whole "protect against the government" argument is complete and utter bull.


Again, I would also like to know how these people would respond in case of a sub group (whether ethnic, religious or political) that wanted to see certain legislation undone or done that you personally don't agree with.



The best answer to this is not guns, but a proper representative election system of the wishes of the populace in all its facets. Which means you have to get rid of the incredibly unrepresentative duality you got now with just two parties having a chance at domination.

[Warborn]

Warborn seems to have this misconception that the US Military is full of mindless drones that serve its government master.

The US military is full of people who don't want to die. If you put them between a state capitol, or the White House, and a mob of armed civilians intent on insurrection, what do you figure the outcome will be? That the soldiers will allow themselves to be shot and killed? Or that once one idiot uses the weapons bequeathed upon them by the Second Amendment that the soldiers they're shooting at will fight back, if not out of duty then out of self-preservation?

Now-a-days, there is no chance at all citizens of modern nations would benefit from attempting armed insurrection. The gap between what civilians have and what the military has is too vast.

[Kriegson]

The US military is full of people who don't want to die. If you put them between a state capitol, or the White House, and a mob of armed civilians intent on insurrection, what do you figure the outcome will be? That the soldiers will allow themselves to be shot and killed? Or that once one idiot uses the weapons bequeathed upon them by the Second Amendment that the soldiers they're shooting at will fight back, if not out of duty then out of self-preservation?

Now-a-days, there is no chance at all citizens of modern nations would benefit from attempting armed insurrection. The gap between what civilians have and what the military has is too vast.


So many inconsistencies....

First of all, how would said soldiers get into said predicament of defending a symbol (That no powerful political parties would be inhabiting in an actual emergency) and sandwiched between angry civilians and conniving politicians?
Why, naturally the order would have to be handled by the brass. Who are also human beings (not machines) who could likely see exactly what such a situation could enact with exacting clarity and would not likely do something so stupid as to force their own troops into a situation where their back is to a wall and the only way out is through civilians.

But let's say there's a more plausible situation where...say...a detachment is being ordered to cordon off and secure a town. A concentration camp in all but plainly spoken words (Concentration a population within a amp). Who would follow that kind of order? No one I knew in my military career or the veterans that I know now.

It's incredibly unlikely that a solider would ever be put into a passive situation of "wait to feasibly be killed or start killing civilians" but even in the event they did, there's always the option of simply standing aside, or joining the theoretical revolution.

Anyone touting that the civilian force has no chance against the U.S. military is obviously correct in an extremely literal way of thinking, but neglects the fact that much of the military would stand down or even defect to any kind of coup should the goverment start ordering a crackdown on the civilian population.

[Figment]

So what's stopping you lot from couping?

[Vecha]

So what's stopping you lot from couping?

Tea.

[Figment]

Tea.

It's always the British! D:

[Warborn]

So many inconsistencies....

Yeah, concentration camps, that's the ticket. Hah. Anyway, the point is that if you put the military from any nation between a place the government wants them to keep safe, and a mob of armed, angry civilians, once the soldiers start taking fire they will defend themselves and the civilians will either lose or take horrible casualties. Arming civilians will not do anything to keep the government in check. You can't beat a modern military with nothing but small arms and some molotovs. The idea of the Second Amendment existing because people need to be able to rise up against an oppressive government stopped being realistic when wars were no longer fought with muskets.

[Infektion]

haven't you seen "HOTFUZZ"? They have the lowest crime rate because murders are "accidents" LOL

[Noivad]

I am late getting back to this thread, I found it an interesting read,and I believe that a lot of you believe in what you say. And while this post started out about crime it reached into an area about military conduct.

1st an Armed citizen need NOT be armed with a gun to be armed. A thrown rock, a piece of glass bottle, a base ball bat are all weapons.

2nd It has been my personal experience to have beared an M16 on two seperate occasions, and ready to use it against American Citzens in self defense, and in fact I fired supressing fire against armed snipers on US soil. I believe my actions contributed to the safety of the soldiers and police officers with me. I have no regrets in the action I took.

3rd when a Nation over throws a government its called a revulotion. Some US States are bigger then most world nations both in area and populations.

When a US state has a segment of its population revolt against Civil Authority its called a riot.

There are two famous incidents that happened in US History where Army Nation Guard troops fired upon civilians . One was back in the late 50's, during worker strikes, and one was at kent State. Civilians at both sites where not armed with guns, but were armed with throwable devices, and in fact threw them. In both cases demostrations that could have become riotious ceased to happen. It should also be noted that preceeding the kent state incident that State and federal property was destroyed by students at universities across the nation.

I am not condoning the actions of the Guard at Kent State. I was not there and will not judge or second guess after the fact. Things tend to feel differently to you when its actually happening to you and is very diffcult to describe.

I was NOT present at either one of these events but say that State government, utilized state military assets. Also Note that the Guard / Army units involved were not of the same trained caliber as they are today. Guard were not required to go to Active Army boot camp back then and had less training if at all.

Bob Graham Activated my unit during the Florida Gas Crisis, when truckers went on strike and stopped, delivering gas for higher wages. The Guard was called in and we took privately owned Trucker vehicles from us citzens - went to Port Everglades, and were confronted by Armed Truckers who had rifles, shot guns and pistols, who stated that if the guard tried to go in and fill up the trucks they would start shooting. They barred the way. I was the 2nd truck in line at the gate, and I got to tell I was scared shitless, because it felt like those truckers were all aining at me. I can also tell ya that if they started shooting at me I would have used that 45 sitting in my lap in self defense or the m15 if I could have gotten it up in time. As we pulled up to the gate 4 truck loads of the 124th INF, (GUARD) unloaded and at double time ran alongside our trucks , turned to face the crowd of truckers and prepared to fire. The show of force broke up the truckers and the guard was able to deliver gas throughout Florida. Eletrical plants were brought back on line, food was delivered to stores, and gas lines that wer over 100 cars long with 4 hour lines for a tank were abated.

The 2nd time was durring the Miami Beach, Liberty City Riots of May 17th 1980. A Marine named Aruther McDuffie, ran a trafic light, there was a high speed chase, aledged accident, an subsequent fatal beating of the Marine. The five police officers involved, were acuited , or given imunity, and the riots began. The police fled the city with the population out of control. both Policeman and fireman were fired upon by Snipers.

Governer Bob graham activited us and I was one of the 1st 50 soldiers on the ground.
It was the 1st BN 265th HHQ ADA Bn (AWSP) that went in. We increased to 500 people that day. My unit had operational control of Miami, and started putting people on the streeds that night. What was really F th up about it was back then the Guard did not even have ammo store with the units it was stored in St Augustine, because in prior years a lot of Guard armories were broken into because of inadequete security and had weapons and ammo stollen from them. On the way down to Miami we stoped at gun deals and bought rounds, but there was not enough for everyone, So some of the guys had nothing but blanks. but I always shot expert and was not one of those guys. Still when we were out that 1st night with the very few police officers and fireman, getting shot at it was an experience I will never forget.

Martial law was declared a curfew was set, and Guard members protected Police Officers assiting in arrests, and the eradication of snipers who continued firing into the 2nd day.

When the 124th came in to back us up, we managed to put guardsmen on almost every corner. The riots were completly stopped except in a few small areas almost immmeditely. But had that populace been armed, the riots whould have spread further into the city and we would have lost control.

Depending what you read, an undetermined number of people died somewhere between 18 and 40, over 800 people arrested, but what you won't read or hear about are the kids and women raped by their peers, or really much of anything the guard did down there. mainly because the police and the government needed to save face, what little was left, and so guard information was very limited. A soldier back then was not even allowed to talk to the press.

Cars and buildings were destroyed and it was declared a federal diaster area.

There are 3 vids on it that gives a bit more history, may be interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW8Ybu-2-IM

Oh and I'm not Black, considered white, and race, gender or age, plays no part in what I shoot at if self defense is an issue. My family were imigrants that came after the civil war.

The job of the Military is to uphold the Constitution of the United States not the government. It maintains Civil Order when it stops to exsist. However upholding The US constitution trumps stopping civil disorder, when that disorder is directed at upholding the us constitution which the government can only abuse so far.

Please Note the Start of the Oath of enlistment:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (STATE NAME) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of (STATE NAME) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God.

Note No mention of government. and that the president is 3rd to the Constitution, then State for Guardsman.

Oh and there is no term limit for this oath either. Hence the saying you can take a soldier out of the Army but you can't get the Army out of a Soldier.

The founding fathers in their wisdom, created a government that protects it populace from government. Freedom is not free and government is NOT all knowing. And if you ever worked for government you know how F th up it is with almost everything it touches.

And for the last of this long post I give you a link to my website that explains what The Warrior Code is.

http://dangerousoperationsgroup.com/warrior.html

Give it a read especially if you have never been Military :evil:

PS I appoligize for any spelling mistakes in advance!!