South China/West Philippine Sea

[sonnyt111]

http://manilastandar...ch-quake-areas/

 

Biazon asks why 'air assets' can't reach quake areas

By Florante S. Solmerin | Posted on October 24, 2013 at 12:02am | 1,679 views

 

He reminded the Department of National Defense and the Armed Forces of the Philippines to "revisit their priorities" in buying assets, while taking into account similar assets for disaster and relief operations.

 

He added that instead of buying more fighter jets, the AFP should also make it a priority to buy more helicopters.

 

 

Si Pong hindi maka-move on sa ISO role ng AFP... There will always be internal threats and natural or man made calamities whether you accept it or not, hindi mawawala yan... Grunt mentality at its finest, "Everything should revolve around the ground pounders"... The real lowdown in this situation, because of his past stint as CSAFP, the common tao out there will give his words a lot of thought...

 

Hayst... Na-stuck na si Pong sa 1980s not realizing that it's already 2013...

Time for him to retire?

[hit05]

1. Until you understand that a ratio disadvantage of 500 to 1, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military. Which in itself as an institution is an unbelievably corrupt organization.

 

 

 

 

Case in point is the helicopter gunship support given by the US to Erap's administration to help against insurgents in Mindanao. Shortly after EDSA 2, these military assets were handed to the MILF chieftain instead. News then was it had been used to attack an opponent for election.

 

The kidnapping case of American missionary Burnham, is another showcase of the government corruption. This kidnapping case was documented and reenacted in a film as written by the first hand eyewitness account of Mrs Burnham, the wife of the fatality and lone survivor of the kidnapping incident. According to the film, the insurgents had local military ID cards that allowed them safety passage despite intensive presence of government troops who have setup a dragnet. It is quite possible that the bullet that killed her husband was from government troops too, making the issue of strengthening the local military by lavishing it with state of the art weaponry an extreme case of foolishness.

[heatseeker0714]

1. Until you understand that a ratio disadvantage of 500 to 1, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military. Which in itself as an institution is an unbelievably corrupt organization.

 

Countries which allows its citizens to have guns have the lowest crime rates (Switzerland, US). While those who impose strict gun controls suffer from high crime rates. Eherm! Philippines. hehe

 

 

Switzerland is a very small country in the middle of Europe and yet it has survived 2 world wars without being invaded by anyone. Kahit si Hitler at si Stalin hindi naglakas loob na pasukin ang bansang ito kahit nandito pa ang mga malalaking bangko at pera... dahil....

 

 

Bawat pamilyang Swiss owns an average of 5-6 RIFLES. Essentially every man, woman and child is armed. Think 50 million Filipinos armed. The Chinese will never dream of sh_tting on us.

 

In contrast saten when the Japanese invaded Filipinos died by the thousands and thousands because we are unarmed.

 

Simple arithmetic and a knowledge in history goes a long way to wisdom. hehe.

 

1.) Ratio na 500 to 1??? San galing yon? 100M Filipinos against 1.3B PRC citizens translates to 13:1.

 

2.) The US has low crime rates? As compared to Japan, Australia, Germany, The UK to name a few?

 

3.) Nobody invaded Switzerland not because they couldn't take them, but because the belligerents needed a place where their representatives could talk where their rights would not be violated by the other side.

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: troll alert.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Edited October 30, 2013 by heatseeker0714

[Larry]

1. Until you understand that a ratio disadvantage of 500 to 1, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military. Which in itself as an institution is an unbelievably corrupt organization.

 

The Chinese also have a few of those so-called NUCLEAR SUBMARINES which can fire missiles from 500 miles with great precision. We can buy 10 new craft and it will be sunk in less than 10 minutes.

 

2. You obviously are not a student of history. Or maybe you're still very young to remember that before the Martial Law era, a significant portion of the middle/upper class own guns and yet crime is relatively low.

 

Again you're missing the point.

 

And I repeat. The point here is not those islands but the overall safety of the country from foreign threats.

 

Countries which allows its citizens to have guns have the lowest crime rates (Switzerland, US). While those who impose strict gun controls suffer from high crime rates. Eherm! Philippines. hehe

 

It's quite basic and simple really. And I understand you have been deluded into thinking otherwise. MORE GUNS MEANS LESS CRIME.

 

But to finish the point.

 

Switzerland is a very small country in the middle of Europe and yet it has survived 2 world wars without being invaded by anyone. Kahit si Hitler at si Stalin hindi naglakas loob na pasukin ang bansang ito kahit nandito pa ang mga malalaking bangko at pera... dahil....

 

Tama ang hula mo pre. Ang galing.

 

Bawat pamilyang Swiss owns an average of 5-6 RIFLES. Essentially every man, woman and child is armed. Think 50 million Filipinos armed. The Chinese will never dream of sh_tting on us.

 

In contrast saten when the Japanese invaded Filipinos died by the thousands and thousands because we are unarmed.

 

Simple arithmetic and a knowledge in history goes a long way to wisdom. hehe.

 

might be a troll or could just be a stupid child

 

in any case I'll bite since I'm bored.

 

1) a 500 to 1 ratio is absurd. just think about it. and LOL at this...

 

I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military.

 

 

which comes right before you cite chinese naval might. what do you propose we use should we come to blows with China? Foul language?

 

 

 

 

2) now you propose arming the populace as a DETERRENT TO FOREIGN THREATS. seriously dude? Do you even know how modern war looks like? You're proposing to arm all filipinos, untrained family men, who probably have never shot a gun in their entire lives, or who has been in any sort of physical confrontation their entire existence, you're proposing we arm these guys and ask them to defend the nation?

 

lol

 

and while I support responsible gun ownership as a right of every human being, the notion of having more guns equals less crime is just absurd. there has been no study to prove this fact, and the accompanying counter point is that countries with no guns have more crime is also false, just take a look at Japan and England.

 

and on switzerland.

 

please don't revise history and say Switzerland was never conquered in both world wars because every family owned guns.

 

Switzerland remained neutral through both conflicts and survived invasions by the Nazis in WW2 by providing concessions to the Germans via bilateral talks and some shady economic deals. It also helped that the swiss had a massive and professional army that can be mobilized quickly to secure their borders, it can also be argued that they had one of the most technically modern armies at the time.

 

basically it was a combination of political savvy, and a large military deterrent (professional soldiers and not citizens with hunting rifles) that kept them safe both times.

 

so no the fact that each family had 5-6 guns wasn't a factor, and you can't force that fact to fit your agenda, it doesn't work that way.

 

given that we can definitely look to the swiss experience to support the need for a modern military. With a modern, well trained and well equipped military we can deter larger invaders just by the virtue of making it too costly for them to invade.

 

We don't have that yet, which is why China constantly bullies us in that area. They can just prod and prod and take whatever they want, while we just yell out "no fair!"

[artvader]

1. Until you understand that a ratio disadvantage of 500 to 1, I'm afraid no amount of explanation will make you discern how strategically pointless and an exercise in idiocy trying to modernize the military. Which in itself as an institution is an unbelievably corrupt organization.

 

The Chinese also have a few of those so-called NUCLEAR SUBMARINES which can fire missiles from 500 miles with great precision. We can buy 10 new craft and it will be sunk in less than 10 minutes.

 

2. You obviously are not a student of history. Or maybe you're still very young to remember that before the Martial Law era, a significant portion of the middle/upper class own guns and yet crime is relatively low.

 

Again you're missing the point.

 

And I repeat. The point here is not those islands but the overall safety of the country from foreign threats.

 

Countries which allows its citizens to have guns have the lowest crime rates (Switzerland, US). While those who impose strict gun controls suffer from high crime rates. Eherm! Philippines. hehe

 

It's quite basic and simple really. And I understand you have been deluded into thinking otherwise. MORE GUNS MEANS LESS CRIME.

 

But to finish the point.

 

Switzerland is a very small country in the middle of Europe and yet it has survived 2 world wars without being invaded by anyone. Kahit si Hitler at si Stalin hindi naglakas loob na pasukin ang bansang ito kahit nandito pa ang mga malalaking bangko at pera... dahil....

 

Tama ang hula mo pre. Ang galing.

 

Bawat pamilyang Swiss owns an average of 5-6 RIFLES. Essentially every man, woman and child is armed. Think 50 million Filipinos armed. The Chinese will never dream of sh_tting on us.

 

In contrast saten when the Japanese invaded Filipinos died by the thousands and thousands because we are unarmed.

 

Simple arithmetic and a knowledge in history goes a long way to wisdom. hehe.

 

If you think the military is corrupt, then you must be living in a make believe world where the people are not corruptible themselves. Obviously, you've been filtering out news of people firing their guns indiscriminately during the new year, thereby killing innocent children. Or to that person who shot a driver because of a simple road altercation? I'm not convinced that ordinary Filipinos can be trusted to act responsibly with a gun.

 

I'd rather not add the stress of knowing that any day now my next-door neighbor can go postal, especially since he can now k*ll me and my loved ones from a few meters away.

 

Another reason why these should be left to the military? In the even that war happens and our military gets thrashed, there's a chance the invading forces will just spare the civilian population, or at least colonize them. Arm every population? The invading forces would just bomb the whole country until there's no population to worry about.

 

Now, if you're saying they have nuclear subs that can fire from 500 miles away, what would armed citizens have against that, you think? Your proposition is at least as pointless as what you think of mine.

 

And the US?!? Bad example, dude. Have you even heard of all those school massacres happening all over their country? The US doesn't even have a low crime rate. In fact, its at the top of the list that has jailed its citizens (1 out of 1000!).

[hit05]

 

 

We don't have that yet, which is why China constantly bullies us in that area. They can just prod and prod and take whatever they want, while we just yell out "no fair!"

 

There is the greater possibility that the circumstances have been created by Filipino leaders. Remember that under Cory, the US Bases were kicked out. It was after all Ninoy's vocal aspiration to make China a greater power than the USA at a time when the Cold War is at its peak. Perhaps his blind followers are doing this out of legacy to their hero?

 

 

But the Chinese already has a gut feel that this is just paying lip service to them. The Chinese Ambassador had it published that our president got no word of honor and lacks integrity. But the Chinese ought to use common sense rather than allow Filipinos to flatter and lure them into a trap that will cost them everything. The real enemy of the mainland Chinese are their local partners who have been busy sucking and milking them for nothing in return.

[mokong10101]

might be a troll or could just be a stupid child

 

in any case I'll bite since I'm bored.

 

1) a 500 to 1 ratio is absurd. just think about it. and LOL at this...

 

 

 

 

which comes right before you cite chinese naval might. what do you propose we use should we come to blows with China? Foul language?

 

 

 

 

2) now you propose arming the populace as a DETERRENT TO FOREIGN THREATS. seriously dude? Do you even know how modern war looks like? You're proposing to arm all filipinos, untrained family men, who probably have never shot a gun in their entire lives, or who has been in any sort of physical confrontation their entire existence, you're proposing we arm these guys and ask them to defend the nation?

 

lol

 

and while I support responsible gun ownership as a right of every human being, the notion of having more guns equals less crime is just absurd. there has been no study to prove this fact, and the accompanying counter point is that countries with no guns have more crime is also false, just take a look at Japan and England.

 

and on switzerland.

 

please don't revise history and say Switzerland was never conquered in both world wars because every family owned guns.

 

Switzerland remained neutral through both conflicts and survived invasions by the Nazis in WW2 by providing concessions to the Germans via bilateral talks and some shady economic deals. It also helped that the swiss had a massive and professional army that can be mobilized quickly to secure their borders, it can also be argued that they had one of the most technically modern armies at the time.

 

basically it was a combination of political savvy, and a large military deterrent (professional soldiers and not citizens with hunting rifles) that kept them safe both times.

 

so no the fact that each family had 5-6 guns wasn't a factor, and you can't force that fact to fit your agenda, it doesn't work that way.

 

given that we can definitely look to the swiss experience to support the need for a modern military. With a modern, well trained and well equipped military we can deter larger invaders just by the virtue of making it too costly for them to invade.

 

We don't have that yet, which is why China constantly bullies us in that area. They can just prod and prod and take whatever they want, while we just yell out "no fair!"

 

I'll even make it more simple for you dude.

 

China = Boot Philippines = Ant

 

Please read more of your history because every it's a well established fact that in Switzerland it has not been invaded for hundreds of years because it has maintained a military which can be fielded overnight and in large numbers because all swiss own guns.

 

If you can't understand that, go back to the library.

 

And if you can't understand that more guns equals less crime. Numbers don't lie. Countries with the most strict gun laws suffer from the most number of crimes.

 

Go educate yourself.

[mokong10101]

If you think the military is corrupt, then you must be living in a make believe world where the people are not corruptible themselves. Obviously, you've been filtering out news of people firing their guns indiscriminately during the new year, thereby killing innocent children. Or to that person who shot a driver because of a simple road altercation? I'm not convinced that ordinary Filipinos can be trusted to act responsibly with a gun.

 

I'd rather not add the stress of knowing that any day now my next-door neighbor can go postal, especially since he can now k*ll me and my loved ones from a few meters away.

 

Another reason why these should be left to the military? In the even that war happens and our military gets thrashed, there's a chance the invading forces will just spare the civilian population, or at least colonize them. Arm every population? The invading forces would just bomb the whole country until there's no population to worry about.

 

Now, if you're saying they have nuclear subs that can fire from 500 miles away, what would armed citizens have against that, you think? Your proposition is at least as pointless as what you think of mine.

 

And the US?!? Bad example, dude. Have you even heard of all those school massacres happening all over their country? The US doesn't even have a low crime rate. In fact, its at the top of the list that has jailed its citizens (1 out of 1000!).

 

In the US 90 percent of gun crimes happen in the 2 percent portion of the country.

 

And if you have to ask WHERE IN THE US IS THAT SO-CALLED 2 PERCENT?

 

Tama ang hula mo pre! Ang galing mo! Tada!

 

Gun free zones.

 

But here's something for your brain to munch.

 

The FBI in 2012 recently released stats regarding crime rates in the US and it showed that crime in the US has been steadily DECREASING for the past 15-20 years.

 

EMPHASIS ON STEADILY DECREASING.

 

More guns equals less crime.

 

Of course only a libertarian will understand that. Or someone who's life is in danger.

[mokong10101]

1.) Ratio na 500 to 1??? San galing yon? 100M Filipinos against 1.3B PRC citizens translates to 13:1.

 

2.) The US has low crime rates? As compared to Japan, Australia, Germany, The UK to name a few?

 

3.) Nobody invaded Switzerland not because they couldn't take them, but because the belligerents needed a place where their representatives could talk where their rights would not be violated by the other side.

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: troll alert.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Another clueless idiot.

 

I'm getting tired of educating clueless sheep.

 

But for your sake, baka tumalab ng konti. Although I doubt it.

 

1. The 500 to 1 ratio I'm mentioning is the military industrial capability. Syempre sa tulad mong walang alam you don't factor in that military production is also a determinant of military advantage.

 

To simplify it further kasi baka hindi pa din naiintindihan sir.

 

The Chinese has production capacities to produce their own equipment. Tayo po ay bumibili lamang. Nagets mo nb? O bka kailangan ko pa ipaliwanag further? Kailangan pb i-memorize yan.

 

2. Stats showed by the FBI revealed that more than 90 percent of crimes are committed at a concentrated area of less than 2 percent of the whole US. That 2 percent are the areas where the government forbids its citizens to carry guns. Gun free zones ika nga.

 

Gets mo nb? O umiikot na ang ulo sa konting arithmetic.

 

FBI stats also showed that crime rates in the US has been steadily decreasing for the past 15-20 years. Common sense na lang kung hindi mo pa alam ang dahilan why bumaba ang crime rates. More guns equals less crime.

 

UK?

 

Hahahahahaha!

 

Yan ang problema sa taong nagmamarunong at nanghuhula lamang.

 

Dude next time before you speak make sure alam mo ang sinasabi mo. Fools speak because they want to say something. hahahaha!

 

Itatak mo to ha.

 

Since the UK imposed strict gun control laws bumaba ang GUN CRIMES NILA. But at the same time nag-skyrocket ang kanilang crime rates. Crime rate in the UK is so bad that...

 

Teka question portion ulet.

 

Alam mo ba pang ilan ang UK sa pinakamadaming crime rate sa Euro area? Google mo dali.

 

Siret?

 

The United Kingdom is 2nd in the Euro in terms of crime rate. Hahaha!

 

yan ang hirap sa nagmamarunong. Napapahiya.

 

3. Mejo pagod naq sa kakaisip. Di nyo din naman kayang intindihin ang sinasabi ko sa inyo dahil brainwashed sheep na kau eh. hehe.

 

But to finalize.

 

I'll give you a clue.

 

Switzerland maintains a very small standing army.

 

Emphasis on VERY SMALL. I think just over 100,000.

 

It also has a relatively small population of 7-8 million.

 

Ang galing mo talaga dre. Pinabilib moq. Galing mo manghula.

 

They are also all armed thus ready for conscription within 24 hours.

 

Hahaha!

 

Aral Aral din wag puro un ulo sa baba pinapagana mga ser.

[Larry]

I'll even make it more simple for you dude.

 

China = Boot Philippines = Ant

 

Please read more of your history because every it's a well established fact that in Switzerland it has not been invaded for hundreds of years because it has maintained a military which can be fielded overnight and in large numbers because all swiss own guns.

 

one thing doesn't have anything to do with another. it doesn't follow if whole families owns guns they get can mobilize a massive military force.

 

a military is a professional fighting force, very different from a populace armed with hunting rifles. a population owning guns doesn't always translate into a large military force. That's like saying a country with families that owns the most number of running shoes has the best runners.

 

LOGIC, HOW DOES IT WORK?

 

and please do school me on this history you speak of, I would so very well like to hear from you on this subject, which you seem to be a very avid student of.

 

 

 

And if you can't understand that more guns equals less crime. Numbers don't lie. Countries with the most strict gun laws suffer from the most number of crimes.

 

I'll give you two countries with strict gun laws that have low crime rates

 

Japan

 

and

 

England

 

now explain yourself.

 

Go educate yourself.

 

try harder son.

[Larry]

Another clueless idiot.

 

I'm getting tired of educating clueless sheep.

 

But for your sake, baka tumalab ng konti. Although I doubt it.

 

1. The 500 to 1 ratio I'm mentioning is the military industrial capability. Syempre sa tulad mong walang alam you don't factor in that military production is also a determinant of military advantage.

 

To simplify it further kasi baka hindi pa din naiintindihan sir.

 

The Chinese has production capacities to produce their own equipment. Tayo po ay bumibili lamang. Nagets mo nb? O bka kailangan ko pa ipaliwanag further? Kailangan pb i-memorize yan.

 

if I may

 

that's still not 500 to 1.

 

prove that you didn't just pull this number out your ass. and then lecture us again about making guesses

 

2. Stats showed by the FBI revealed that more than 90 percent of crimes are committed at a concentrated area of less than 2 percent of the whole US. That 2 percent are the areas where the government forbids its citizens to carry guns. Gun free zones ika nga.

 

read further and you'll find that these aren't gun related crimes.

 

 

 

Gets mo nb? O umiikot na ang ulo sa konting arithmetic.

 

FBI stats also showed that crime rates in the US has been steadily decreasing for the past 15-20 years. Common sense na lang kung hindi mo pa alam ang dahilan why bumaba ang crime rates. More guns equals less crime.

 

wrong again

 

more guns equals more gun related homicides.

 

less guns equals more non-gun related violence

 

no guns means people just found a way to hurt each other without firearms.

 

that's a fact.

 

in the US where there's an average rate of 88 guns per 100 people, there are 9146 homicides by firearm, or 60% of the total homicide rate.

 

guns have s@%t to do with violent crime

 

if the people are violent they will find ways to k*ll each other guns or not.

 

UK?

 

Hahahahahaha!

 

Yan ang problema sa taong nagmamarunong at nanghuhula lamang.

 

Dude next time before you speak make sure alam mo ang sinasabi mo. Fools speak because they want to say something. hahahaha!

 

Itatak mo to ha.

 

Since the UK imposed strict gun control laws bumaba ang GUN CRIMES NILA. But at the same time nag-skyrocket ang kanilang crime rates. Crime rate in the UK is so bad that...

 

again because reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

 

gun's don't have anything to do with violent crimes, and you just cited a strong example to the disadvantage of your argument.

 

you just said it yourself stricter gun control = less gun related crimes.

 

so how does your argument work again more guns = less crime?

 

Teka question portion ulet.

 

Alam mo ba pang ilan ang UK sa pinakamadaming crime rate sa Euro area? Google mo dali.

 

Siret?

 

The United Kingdom is 2nd in the Euro in terms of crime rate. Hahaha!

 

yan ang hirap sa nagmamarunong. Napapahiya.

 

for the third time, owning or not owning guns has nothing to do with crime rates. you even said it yourself.

 

any connection between violence and gun control can be attributed to a lot of other factors also and not purely gun ownership.

 

even your argument speaks of this

 

I'll give you a tip, there's a thing in debates called logic, you might want to read up on that, because everything you've setup is a strawman that diverts from the issue at hand.

 

 

 

3. Mejo pagod naq sa kakaisip. Di nyo din naman kayang intindihin ang sinasabi ko sa inyo dahil brainwashed sheep na kau eh. hehe.

 

But to finalize.

 

I'll give you a clue.

 

Switzerland maintains a very small standing army.

 

Emphasis on VERY SMALL. I think just over 100,000.

 

It also has a relatively small population of 7-8 million.

 

Ang galing mo talaga dre. Pinabilib moq. Galing mo manghula.

 

They are also all armed thus ready for conscription within 24 hours.

 

Hahaha!

 

Aral Aral din wag puro un ulo sa baba pinapagana mga ser.

 

I'll help you out

 

Switzerland has an active military of 134,000, with a call up of around 1.4M give or take.

 

the call up rate is high because military service is compulsory (if you don't know what that means, it means that it's required by law to enter the service once you hit 19)

 

nowhere does it say that the large military call up number is due to the fact that a majority of swiss own guns.

 

I'll give you another example.

 

Israel

 

the IDF has an active military of around 156,000.

 

with a call up number of around 1.5M

 

Israel has the same compulsory military service required of its citizens, theirs only starts at 18 years old.

 

exactly the same military conscription policies that the swiss have.

 

Israel has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. Only people who work in security or law enforcement or former IDF officers (to a certain extent) can own guns. in fact their gun policy is the complete polar opposite of the US second amendment.

 

and surprise they haven't been conquered since they were founded in the 40s. Even when they were ganged up upon by the Arabs in the 70s they still haven't folded. and not everyone there owns guns, completely the opposite of your Swiss example.

 

now what does that tell you?

 

come on you're smart. you can do it.

[tk421]

In the US 90 percent of gun crimes happen in the 2 percent portion of the country.

 

And if you have to ask WHERE IN THE US IS THAT SO-CALLED 2 PERCENT?

 

Tama ang hula mo pre! Ang galing mo! Tada!

 

Gun free zones.

 

But here's something for your brain to munch.

 

The FBI in 2012 recently released stats regarding crime rates in the US and it showed that crime in the US has been steadily DECREASING for the past 15-20 years.

 

EMPHASIS ON STEADILY DECREASING.

 

More guns equals less crime.

 

Of course only a libertarian will understand that. Or someone who's life is in danger.

 

One doesn't necessarily follow the other. You want to know why it's declining? Read my previous post: America is jailing more of its population than any other country. Which means more of the criminals are in jail. Of course, you know that jail prevents criminals from committing more crimes, right?

 

Another thing? More effective law enforcement (yup in a broader sense, military). Yes, if you arm everyone, our lives will definitely be in danger (cringe)...

 

I'm not saying civilians are not supposed to carry firearms, mind you. What I'm saying is to give firearms only to those who are responsible with it. But we're veering too far out of the topic (which is still the territorial disputes in the West PH Sea/South Ch Sea). If you want to follow up on your topic about arming every Filipinos with guns, then please create a new topic for that. Otherwise, if you're not talking about the Spratly's and other islands involved, post them in the appropriate forum.

 

Salamat. Lab you.

[tk421]

Just to add, where I live right now, citizens here are restricted from owning guns (at all). Yet, it's the most peaceful place I've ever lived in. There's no risk of a deranged motorist with a handgun in his glove compartment ever attacking me if a traffic altercation is ever to occur.

 

Plus, its rival neighbor is afraid of attacking it, despite it being smaller than Luzon. You want to know why? It has a modern military.

 

Why is this relevant to the thread? Because I'm living in Taiwan.

[hit05]

Just to add, where I live right now, citizens here are restricted from owning guns (at all). Yet, it's the most peaceful place I've ever lived in. There's no risk of a deranged motorist with a handgun in his glove compartment ever attacking me if a traffic altercation is ever to occur.

 

Plus, its rival neighbor is afraid of attacking it, despite it being smaller than Luzon. You want to know why? It has a modern military.

 

Why is this relevant to the thread? Because I'm living in Taiwan.

 

 

You mean it got a professional military. Taiwan can be compared to Israel and Switzerland that got a citizen-military service making them a community of military volunteers.

 

You need to refer to history and realize that Filipinos have been in that total gun ban situation too during Martial Law - but we were never immune from abuses by those in power and those who commit to insurgency like the NPA and the MNLF.

[maxiev]

I'll even make it more simple for you dude.

 

China = Boot Philippines = Ant

 

Please read more of your history because every it's a well established fact that in Switzerland it has not been invaded for hundreds of years because it has maintained a military which can be fielded overnight and in large numbers because all swiss own guns.

 

If you can't understand that, go back to the library.

 

And if you can't understand that more guns equals less crime. Numbers don't lie. Countries with the most strict gun laws suffer from the most number of crimes.

 

Go educate yourself.

I don't know about that. Singapore, which imposes the death penalty for illegal possession of firearms is one of the safest society on earth. Same thing goes for Japan. And China, well I believe they also have very serious penalties for gun possession. And China is a relatively peaceful country insofar as peace and order is concerned.

 

On the other hand, there are serious debates going on in the USA about gun ownership because there are a lot of senseless crimes committed by owners of firearms. The NRA is pro-gun while the rest are anti gun ownership. Now everyone knows that the NRA has very powerful political sympathizers which is why there is seems to be a stalemate.

 

Personally, I prefer to have law enforcement, which is very professional in the USA, take care of security rather than a bunch of yahoos taking the law into the their own hands. There is little room for vigilante justice in the United states. Proliferation of guns can be attributed to all those senseless school shootings that could have been prevented if guns were more difficult to secure in the USA.