Swiss soldiers face loss of right to store guns at home

[MagenDavid]

These, again, are statements made of complete ignorance. That is not an attack on you; that is merely the declaration that the opinion you are expressing has no relation to the actual, objective facts concerning the topic on which you have chosen to express your opinions. These opinions cannot be reconciled with the crime statistics of either nations with extensive gun ownership OR nations with heavy restrictions on personal firearms.

Nations that strictly control firearms generally had much lower levels of violent crime before they enacted those controls, because this violence is cultural in nature -- that is, not generated by the availability of personal arms. Those same nations, after enacting strict controls of firearms (the UK is a very good example) have seen a marked increase in both violent crime and crimes committed with firearms -- because the enaction of those controls essentially declares a field day on law-abiding citizens, who are now completely disarmed and at the mercy of those who need not follow any laws. Laws restricting firearms encourage the black market trade in and importation of weapons because those weapons become a valuable, desirable commodity that cannot be had through other means.

By contrast, those localities in which citizens may arm themselves experience lower (or flat) levels of violent crime specifically due to the deterrent effect of arms owned by law-abiding citizens. Certain states in the US that recently enacted "shall issue" firearms laws are good examples of this, such as Florida and Texas, where the enaction of such laws, far from creating the "blood in the streets" that firearms prohibitionists predicted, actually decreased levels of violent crime (or produced no effect on it, depending on the statistic examined).

Please, before you advocate laws that have a direct bearing on the very lives of human beings, inform yourself of the facts. Disarming citizens does nothing but endanger their lives.

This gets tricky. I mean, it's true that places like Texas and Florida experienced decreases in crime after enacting concealed carry laws and becoming shall issue states. And Vermont, one of only two states in the Union with no restrictions on concealed carry, has one of the nation's lowest crime rates, if I recall properly. I think even Georgia has a town where its residents are legally required to have a firearm in the home, and their crime rates are no higher than any other town of similar size, if I recall. Then again, this might all be somewhat antiquated knowledge.
But Australia, for example, changed the laws defining certain crimes as they restricted firearms, so it forced their crime rates up because more activities were being defined as criminal. I'm not certain about what happened with Britain, though.
Still, change your tone. The whole thing of putting someone on the defensive is utterly useless. By the way, how is your reference to Green Party communism relevant?

Now, that said, I'm all for gun ownership. The guy kicking down my door may be bigger, but the firearms make us equal. A 230 grain .45 ACP bullet travels no faster from my brother's hands at a bear-like 6'3" and 300 lbs than from my ex girlfriend's wishbone-like 5'3" and 110 lbs.
And on a practical level, a guy kicking down my door at 3AM will have a handgun. Let's be generous and give him a "wonder nine" with a reload, giving him perhaps 35 rounds of 9mm. I might only be likewise armed with a similar pistol. But more likely I'll have a home defense gun, and he's looking down the bore of a pump shotgun. While it has fewer shots, each shot is geometrically more lethal than a 9mm round.
I don't remember where I saw this quote, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away." And it bears much truth. A home invader demands instant response, even in that response is barricading myself in my bedroom prepared to shout "I have a gun!" if I hear the invader getting nearer. And if it gets ugly, that fight is going to be over fast. Like, probably 5 shots or fewer will be fired cumulatively. Unless the police have foreknowledge, they'll never respond fast enough. Of course, this justifies defensive weaponry, like a pump or auto shotgun, not an assault or battle rifle. But I think gravertom explained the idea behind owning a military weapon more succinctly than I would. It's about not being subject to the whims of a government I don't trust.
A co worker describes the second amendment to the American constitution as the reset button for the American government.

 

[Phil Elmore]

I don't think it's tricky at all. Over and over again, throughout history, controls on the ownership of firearms have not eliminated them, nor reduced crimes with them. Such laws have only made it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Setting statistics aside, and even cultural comparisons, it's really a matter of common sense. Are you more or less safe when you are able to own, legally, the most effective tools of self-defense? Disarmed citizens are not safer; they are in greater danger. Unless and until some magic power is invented that can make firearms (which are a relatively simple, and very durable, technology) disappear physically, completely, from the face of the Earth, it is always going to be the case that armed citizens are more safe and not less.

Of course, the other side of this is that any human being willing to tell you that you will be more safe disarmed, and that he or she supports your disarmament, is basically telling you that he believes you are neither competent nor trustworthy. Such a person, to me, has the soul of a tyrant, and at the very least displays a casual disregard for the value of your life.

 

[greenwoods]

I won't fuel this debate further as it seems like a fairly sensitive subject for some of you guys. Nor will I contaminate the harmony of Aunt Yangdu's forum by elaborating on the fundamental flaws and general insufficiency of Sharp Phil's “facts”. I just wouldn't be nice.

I will, however, point out that with more than ten thousand firearm kills per year, you're obviously doing something wrong, and blindly advocating the supremacy of this policy isn't going to do wonders for your credibility. And besides, why stop at assault rifles and machine guns? How's a nuke for deterrent effect?

Hiya Acinonyx
Fuel can be a bad thing for an out of control fire,( unless your cooking something tasty:thumbup: ), yet not so bad for a debate.
We learn a great many things from each other here.
Ya don't always have to be nice, If everyone always agrees with you, you really don't stand for anything:thumbup:, BUT don't let that philosophy stop you from getting the different view.
And I always work very diligently to notice the difference, in my communications with folks, between 'nice' and 'polite'.

Sometimes when Facts are introduced into a conversation, that conversation can change. And when it does, speaking only for myself, I have to work very hard to follow the new path Without my emotion clouding my understanding.

Occam's Razor can sometimes produce a straight line in a person that may not create the time to mold the communication so that ALL those listening can GET what is being said.


Mark

 

[Karda]

I hate to see the well written rights our forefathers gave to us for good reason degradated by people with their own agenda, it's an Obamanation.
I have to agree with Phil and Tom on this issue and only wish to add the quote " When the right to keep and bear arms becomes criminalized then only criminals will bear arms."

 

[greenwoods]

I don't think it's tricky at all. Over and over again, throughout history, controls on the ownership of firearms have not eliminated them, nor reduced crimes with them. Such laws have only made it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

Setting statistics aside, and even cultural comparisons, it's really a matter of common sense. Are you more or less safe when you are able to own, legally, the most effective tools of self-defense? Disarmed citizens are not safer; they are in greater danger. Unless and until some magic power is invented that can make firearms (which are a relatively simple, and very durable, technology) disappear physically, completely, from the face of the Earth, it is always going to be the case that armed citizens are more safe and not less.

Of course, the other side of this is that any human being willing to tell you that you will be more safe disarmed, and that he or she supports your disarmament, is basically telling you that he believes you are neither competent nor trustworthy. Such a person, to me, has the soul of a tyrant, and at the very least displays a casual disregard for the value of your life.

Well said, Phil
:thumbup:

Mark

 

[greenwoods]

I hate to see the well written rights our forefathers gave to us for good reason degradated by people with their own agenda, it's an Obamanation.
I have to agree with Phil and Tom on this issue and only wish to add the quote " When the right to keep and bear arms becomes criminalized then only criminals will bear arms."

:thumbup:
You have this right Brother:thumbup:
Mark

 

[MagenDavid]

Seconding the fuel thing. I like a little clash. I think it was locking horns with DannyInJapan that I stopped and reflected on the nature of reproduction and its role in society. He may not have persuaded me to his view, but he certainly caused me to challenge and examine my own.

 

[Acinonyx]

I can't see any of those articles substantiating your claim that increased regulations on gun possession has anything to do with increased gun crime. These articles mainly deal with increased gang related crime and decreasing police resources (and BB guns).

I do not dispute your claim that crime is generated culturally, and as I said - guns don't kill people. You claim that crime will be less of a problem if people are allowed to have guns, and I claim the opposite. I won't deny you the right to claim this, but I sure hope it's an opinion founded on more than fanaticism or fear.

What I said earlier about not wanting to sully this forum was meant truthfully. This is a special place, and words should be chosen wisely, especially in a heated debate. You are free to call me and my opinions whatever you want, but do so in a PM.

 

[greenwoods]

I can't see any of those articles substantiating your claim that increased regulations on gun possession has anything to do with increased gun crime. These articles mainly deal with increased gang related crime and decreasing police resources (and BB guns).

I do not dispute your claim that crime is generated culturally, and as I said - guns don't kill people. You claim that crime will be less of a problem if people are allowed to have guns, and I claim the opposite. I won't deny you the right to claim this, but I sure hope it's an opinion founded on more than fanaticism or fear.

What I said earlier about not wanting to sully this forum was meant truthfully. This is a special place, and words should be chosen wisely, especially in a heated debate. You are free to call me and my opinions whatever you want, but do so in a PM.

Who?

Mark

 

[Acinonyx]

Sudden inflation of posts there suddenly. My post was directed at Mr. Sharp Phil, more or less exclusively.

 

[titus010782]

Sharp Phil. Acinonyx's opinion is a reflection on the state of the adverage Brit's mentality.

I have lived here (UK) for a while now. I have found the insufferable one-mindedness of these people staggering. Especially the depths that this indoctrination goes.
I come from a fairly martial society. In my country, if you are not a combatant, you are a victim. Alot of people preactice a martial way of thinking. I have been attacked twice by thugs with knives and both times managed to escape just because I had the right mentality and didnt walk around with the belief that the state was going to keep me 100% safe.

Let me tell y'all a little story.

I live in a small apartment building in a leafy suburb. A good area with a lovely garden and lawn.
I got into a friendly debate with one of the senior citizens a little while ago. What about?
The GRASS. I was not allowed to let my toddler walk on the grass. This is how the conversation went...

Why cant children walk or play on the grass? What is the grass for then? Just for show?I asked.

"because its not allowed" came the answer

Who says?

"the tenant body organisation"

What harm will it do?

...silence...

Who are the tenant body members?

"myself and 3 of the others (senior citizens)"

Dont you think this is a silly rule?

"....cant do anything about it"

Why not?

"because those are the rules"

Who is going to enforce them?

...silence...

Do you agre with these rules?

"not really, but cant do anything about them"

So, realistically, I could let my toddler practice walking on the lawn and no harm would come of it?

"...its just not allowed"

Note: we live in a good area where everyone should be kind to everyone else. But kindness and reason seem abstract concepts to the "natives", as I have come to call the local british sheep.

This is basically the bulk of the conversation. Just an example of the institutionalisation these people suffer from.
If it not the normally done thing, then they dont know how to react. These is no reasoning with a brit. They are very narrow-minded.
They think that because you are not allowed to have guns, somehow the bad guys will just obey this rule and play along...NOT!!!
Criminals are free thinkers! Probably the only free thinkers on this island.

The FACTS are that the criminals will still have access to guns no matter what the "politicaly correct" flunkies of people like Jacqui Smith and Harriet Harman try and say about it. Disarming the people was the biggest mistake this government ever made.

As a human being, it is my right to bear arms to defend myself. You cant even carry a pen knife to cut your beef jerky.
Now, some new legislative trash is coming out to prevent people from carrying ANY dangerous items. These include axes, gardening tools etc.

All I can ask is WTF!!!???!!!

You guys in the states may be laughing now, but this is seriously what they are doing.
The criminals are going to find it easier to prey on these helpless sheep because now they cant even carry a stick!

Somebody help these people to wake up. they are all asleep.

 

[Phil Elmore]

I can't see any of those articles substantiating your claim that increased regulations on gun possession has anything to do with increased gun crime. These articles mainly deal with increased gang related crime and decreasing police resources (and BB guns).

I do not dispute your claim that crime is generated culturally, and as I said - guns don't kill people. You claim that crime will be less of a problem if people are allowed to have guns, and I claim the opposite. I won't deny you the right to claim this, but I sure hope it's an opinion founded on more than fanaticism or fear.

What I said earlier about not wanting to sully this forum was meant truthfully. This is a special place, and words should be chosen wisely, especially in a heated debate. You are free to call me and my opinions whatever you want, but do so in a PM.

Well, you've put your finger on it -- you "can't see it," evidently, because you don't want to see it. The facts are what they are, and they're listed there in black and white. The public crime data is the public crime data, too.

I'm not telling you that you're a bad person for having your opinion; I'm simply telling you that A) you're wrong; and B) you're propagating notions that do your fellow human beings a disservice by, ultimately, endangering their lives. You're making statements about firearms that are clearly made from ignorance. That's not an insult; ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge about a given topic. It's easily corrected.

You've made your statements publicly; I will therefore make mine publicly. If you wish to engage in some sort of dialog in PM, that's fine with me; you will find me as cordial and civil there as I am here. I've not made any insults, attacks, or flames; I've simply told you why you are not correct based on the truth as I understand it to be.

Firearms are important tools. They protect human life. It is that human life that truly matters to me; I hate to see it endangered by statements made from a lack of knowledge about the tools in question.

 

[titus010782]

I can't see any of those articles substantiating your claim that increased regulations on gun possession has anything to do with increased gun crime. These articles mainly deal with increased gang related crime and decreasing police resources (and BB guns).

I do not dispute your claim that crime is generated culturally, and as I said - guns don't kill people. You claim that crime will be less of a problem if people are allowed to have guns, and I claim the opposite. I won't deny you the right to claim this, but I sure hope it's an opinion founded on more than fanaticism or fear.

What I said earlier about not wanting to sully this forum was meant truthfully. This is a special place, and words should be chosen wisely, especially in a heated debate. You are free to call me and my opinions whatever you want, but do so in a PM.

Wake up, man. We live in the same country yet you cant see the grass for the trees.
You not being allowed to carry a gun is not going to stop the yob next door from stabbing your grandmother to death or shooting your little brother.

these rules are only about controlling the peasants. Which is what we are, unless your Dad has some or other aristocratic 'title' in front of his name.
Classist is as bad as racist and WORSE than fascist.

And that goes for the xenophobia too

 

[titus010782]

I hate to see the well written rights our forefathers gave to us for good reason degradated by people with their own agenda, it's an Obamanation.
I have to agree with Phil and Tom on this issue and only wish to add the quote " When the right to keep and bear arms becomes criminalized then only criminals will bear arms."

My brothers in arms. Never give up your 2nd ammendment rights.
And if you find yourself without heat, make a Caselman. They are cheap and easy

 

[Acinonyx]

I'm sorry, Titus, but I'm not british. I do, however, have a pretty up-to-date picture of how it's going there.

Further, I'm amazed at being told I'm ignorant by a guy who's just been proved wrong on very basic facts, and who fails to provide any tangible proof to substantiate the opinions which he so vehemently (and to his credit - articulately) advocates.

And I'm confused. Do you all live in war zones? I mean, if you all lived in Congo I'd probably be shipping you guns right now. But you don't, and you appear to live in a more or less civilized democracy. If guns are crucial to your health and safety I can't help but think that there are more aggravating issues than gun control to deal with.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Further, I'm amazed at being told I'm ignorant by a guy who's just been proved wrong on very basic facts, and who fails to provide any tangible proof to substantiate the opinions which he so vehemently (and to his credit - articulately) advocates.

Every one of those assertions is false; not only have you not proven me wrong, but I've provided facts that directly refuted your own assertions. I'm not sure how you then conclude your comments aren't based on ignorance. After all, one of us owns and carries a gun every day; I'm pretty sure it's not you. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this; it's just that from the start, when someone who has very little familiarity with firearms attempts to make sweeping statements about them, he is at a disadvantage.

And I'm confused. Do you all live in war zones? I mean, if you all lived in Congo I'd probably be shipping you guns right now. But you don't, and you appear to live in a more or less civilized democracy. If guns are crucial to your health and safety I can't help but think that there are more aggravating issues than gun control to deal with.

A moment ago you were citing statistics about how many firearms-related deaths there are in my country. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. But this also misses the point. Most firearms owners will live and go to their graves never needing their firearms for personal protection -- but a measurable percentage of them will use them to good effect. If we could determine who those people are ahead of time, the rest of us could go about our lives blithely refusing to take responsibility for personal safety and civil rights. Since we can't make that prediction, we do our best to be prepared and hope, quite rightly, that we won't be among those who are forced to take action in the face of criminal intent.

Even when crime is very low, there exists the real possibility that you might be the victim of a rare violent crime. One may either acknowledge that reality and accept responsibility for one's personal safety, or one may hope without preparation that one is never called to task. For me, wishful thinking is not an option, and I hate to see it advocated from ignorance.

 

[titus010782]

I'm sorry, Titus, but I'm not british. I do, however, have a pretty up-to-date picture of how it's going there.

Further, I'm amazed at being told I'm ignorant by a guy who's just been proved wrong on very basic facts, and who fails to provide any tangible proof to substantiate the opinions which he so vehemently (and to his credit - articulately) advocates.

And I'm confused. Do you all live in war zones? I mean, if you all lived in Congo I'd probably be shipping you guns right now. But you don't, and you appear to live in a more or less civilized democracy. If guns are crucial to your health and safety I can't help but think that there are more aggravating issues than gun control to deal with.

you have been served..

Hows that humble pie taste?

 

[titus010782]

Just who are you then? You claim to know so much yet also wish to hold onto to deniability?
Non-accountability is the name of the game for you brits.

Take a deep breath and calm down before posting a response. If you dont, Phil is going to take you to pieces again and you'll be eating that pie for a long time

 

[Acinonyx]

Well, you did claim that the banning of guns in Britain lead to an increase in violent crime. I provided irrefutable statistics stating that you were wrong. You countered with three articles which really didn't prove anything (except that BB guns are responsible for most of the gun related crimes in Manchester and that LA-style gang crime was on the increase). Hence my reasoning.

And, trying my best not to participate in this adolescent pissing contest, I can only say that we do learn to handle guns in the army. I'd be very careful about making presumptions about people I didn't know anything about.

What you seem to ignore is the fact that allowing guns goes both ways. Sure, you'd might get the ultimate tool of self-defence, but the same goes for the assailant. Suddenly the stakes are way higher, and the likelyhood of someone dying is vastly increased. It'll probably be you. Attacker usually gets the first move. I know I'm repeating myself, it just seems like this logic fails to penetrate.

Over here we have people charged with the possession of illegal weapons all the time. Gets them off the streets like nothing else.

Political disputes are usually managed politically. Very few guns there.

 

[Steely_Gunz]

Gentlebeings, this is the Cantina NOT the political forum. The main differences being that the political board is filled with poo-flinging hardliners and moderated by very patient and fine moderators...while the Cantina is a place for discussion (heated as it may become) were all the non-hi khuk stuff goes. I should also point out that I am not patient when it comes to this stuff

Hot topic stuff is fine. Politics is fine. Just be nice If you want to discuss it and keep it friendly, go for it and have fun. Uncle Bill wanted this place to be a hang out for some of the best minds on the web. I certainly think we have that here in spades. So just try to act like it, please.

If you want to have a public splitting contest, feel free to take it to political and a wonderful day:thumbup:


Proceed my friends