Swiss soldiers face loss of right to store guns at home

Acinonyx said:
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.
Click to expand...

You provided nothing of the kind, I'm afraid. By contrast, I cited three different news reports, from a simple Google search of many more similar results, that indicated an increase in violent crime in the UK (and portions of it) followed the strict restrictions enacted on firearms. What you're ignoring, however, is that this was not the primary point (as I've said more than once in the course of this thread), because violent crime in the UK was lower compared to that of the United States BEFORE the enaction of those laws. This is because violent crime is a product of cultural factors and is not a function of the availability of weapons.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you keep using pejorative terms to mischaracterize what has been a civil exchange, then declare that you don't wish to participate in that exchange -- all while responding to that exchange. If you don't wish to engage in this discussion, then don't. As for your knowledge of firearms, I don't know what training you were given in the military, but it could not have been particularly extensive if your understanding of home defense is simply to "cut the power" to the home (as if this is even feasible or practical), all while hoping that your burglar will be thinking pleasant, non-violent thoughts because he assumes no one in the home has a weapon. These are simply fictions based on a lack of understanding of the reality of violence. They cannot be otherwise.

What you seem to ignore is the fact that allowing guns goes both ways.
Click to expand...

No, unfortunately; what you don't understand is that "allowing" guns has no effect on crime because criminals do not obtain their firearms legally. The overwhelming majority of firearms used in crimes are obtained illegally. Banning guns won't remove those illegal arms from circulation; it will only increase their relative value, while making law-abiding citizens that much more vulnerable to such crime.

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

Actually, no, it doesn't, by your own admission. If charging people with the possession of illegal weapons was "getting those weapons off the streets like nothing else," the crimes you cite would not be occurring "all the time." But by your own admission, there is an endless supply of these -- because making a weapon illegal does not make it disappear. Criminals will always desire weapons and will always find ways to obtain them. The prevalence of contraband weapons in prisons, the most restricted environment imaginable, points irrefutably to this. Disarming law-abiding citizens only puts them at a disadvantage without having any measurable effect on availabiliy of illegal arms.

Political disputes are usually managed politically. Very few guns there.
Click to expand...

That statement is meaningless...unless you hope to assert, quite wrongly, that there is no such thing as a war generated through political differences. I believe there is a very famous statement about war being the continuation of politics through other means...
 
I would, however, like to commend Acinonyx for both sticking with this thread despite his misgivings, and for remaining largely civil in his participation. As Steely mentioned, there is too little of that kind of thing when these discussions come up, and it's encouraging to see it play out this way, largely polite.
 
Acinonyx said:
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.
Click to expand...

As Phil has rightly pointed out, your comments have been more incendiary on this thread than anyone else thus far. Please consider that when you next express your concern for the harmony on this forum.

Tom
 
greenwoods said:
:thumbup:
You Sir, are a fine gentleman, a good father and I am happy to read your able posts.
Not to mention one heck of a graver:eek::)

:D
Mark
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark!

Your kind words served me very well. The temperature of my head dropped a bit, and that was a good thing!

Take care,

Tom
 
I'll admit, abruptly removing guns from a fairly gun-saturated society such as yours would probably be a bad idea. However, both of the reasons you claim for keeping weapons - for self-defence and to retain political power - should really have better solutions in a civilized society. I understand that most of you would cling to the 2. amendment to the bitter end, and I respect that. I just hope you don't cling to it because of tenets, beliefs or plain'ol stubbornness but rather that you engage the idea an open mind and some politically neutral info and decide from there.

And lastly, I'll respect gravertoms admonition by not fuelling this debate further. I think it's safe to say that whether you guys get to keep your guns or not is neither my business nor my concern. From my point of view the only thing which kept this debate going was a series of (what I perceived to be) aggressive and impolite posts by Sharp Phil. I don't really think anyone enters a thread like Sharp Phil did not intending to start a flame war. Still, my word are my own and I'll stick by them. I am terribly sorry if any of you good cantina fellas took my words too much to heart. As I said - I don't really care one way or the other about how you do things politically over there, I just don't want you to get hurt.
 
I am of the same opinion as Phil and Tom and anyone else for the freedom to defend your home and yourself with any force necessary to accomplish it.
It's been proven over and over and over again here in the USA that when the local government takes it on themselves to enact a, "Money for Guns" deal no matter the guise it's carried out under that depending upon how successful the gun removal process happened to be the crime rate goes up a substantial amount of that success.:thumbdn: :mad: :(
On the other hand when local law enforcement comes out urging every household to purchase a firearm for home defense the incident of violent crime for that area goes down!!!!:thumbup: :D :cool:




.
 
I love the idea of being civilized, but I think it's a good cop bad cop sort of thing. Two men can sit down and discuss things with logic and discourse. But when the practical reality of civilized discourse sets in, the threat of force is ultimately what makes people obey laws.
Why would I listen to a cop if he didn't have that sidearm and stick?
Why would we follow the laws of Congress if the military weren't there to back them up?

Getting back to a more microscopic paradigm, my 300+ lb brother has no reason to do anything I ask or say without some force. He could knock me down and take what he wants.

Now, theoretically, yes, we give the monopoly of force to the government as per the social contract that is the constitutional representative democracy. But the founders of the American Constitution understood two things:
1) We need protection from foreign invaders, for which we can't have access to constant protection.
2) We need protection from domestic threats, civilian and government alike. Police can't be our personal bodyguards and sometimes the government isn't there for us. Take as an example the notion that in the wake of the LA riots following the Rodney King verdict (the first one when all four officers were acquitted) and the upper levels of LAPD command pulled all the officers off the streets, leaving the residents of LA to the whims of rioters. Just the same, though, we face an ever present threat of a government overwhelming its citizenry to the point of a police state.
The idea of giving the monopoly of force to the government as per the social contract only extends so far as asserting our will over others or the government protecting us. If another tries to assert their will over a citizen and the government fails to intervene, the citizen has a right to defense.
Not that we can't do wondrous things knives, but firearm technology is a far superior leveler. I'm sure a well trained and well organized partisan force armed with machetes and khukris would inflict serious casualties and morale damage, but such a force will always be at a disadvantage to an army armed with rifles.
I'd implore the question to be asked this way: the founders of the American Constitution were very forward thinking and brilliantly innovative. Isn't it feasible that they had a very good reason for making the right to have firearms the next right down the list after saying/believing what we want?

I'm not seeing where Actinonyx was being incendiary, though, with all respect to those finding him as such. He seemed to be just disagreeing.
 
I understand that sharp phil may have come on a bit strong, but as he stated before, it was not a personal attack against you but rather an attack on the misguided beliefs that you stated in this thread. In order to understand phil first you must understand that the man lives and works in a city here in my home state of new york( actually about a hour from where i live ) that is probably second only to NYC as far as crime and weapons death.
He was only trying to make you understand that regulation of firearms does nothing but bind the hands of those that wish to defend themselves against a criminal factor that follows no law and almost always has access to military type weaponry and has the mentality to use it at will for criminal intent. Gun control does nothing to make the streets safer, it only serves to make the vast majority of our citizenry vulnerable to these criminals and makes the government rest assured that they can ride roughshod over said citizenry without fear of repercussion.
This has been a hot topic here for years as some politicians who think as you do( that strong regulation is a good thing) have tried to curtail or even abolish the second amendment rights we we given upon foundation of this country. This right was given to us to not only curtail overzealous government but to also help protect us from criminality that knows no bounds or borders. Pardon me, but i don't want to live in a melting pot without any way of saving my life or those that i love or defending my country and freedom herein. When it comes to talking about restricting or abolishing my rights to lawfully defend myself and anyone proclaims that i should give up my guns and knives in the best interest of society....well them can be fightin' words if not used with a modicum of understanding. Alot of our Families have fought and died to keep these rights and i for one will not tolerate their dying in vain because some politician has his own agenda and feels that he knows more about what is better for me than i myself do.
What is happening in the UK is unnerving for us here in the USA because we were once a part of that country and only thru our bearing our arms did we get release from the stranglehold of tyranny that kept us from self governing and having the freedoms we have since enjoyed.
If you think gun control does not matter to you because you live in neither country, you are mistaken, This matter concerns us all in the entire world, if it can happen in the UK, it can happen here and thus anywhere in the world.
We need to band together to send the message to our respective governments, that we will not stand for being mothered or big brothered into submission. Support the NRA and any organization that respectfully supports your second amendment rights.
 
Last edited:
As I said, I respect your opinions wholeheartedly, and if you believe that arming yourself is the answer, then it probably is. I live in a different place and under different conditions, and the fact that I don't need to arm myself gives me a sense of freedom I wouldn't trade for anything.
 
gravertom said:
This is a typical misuse of statistical data. The window is too narrow.

Tom
Click to expand...


The author Mark Twain once said, " There are lies, damn lies and statistics"

I believe he meant to say that with increasing severity on the subject.
You can prove ANYTHING with statistics.
Little 150 person surveys are being taken as a generalisation of a certain trend in many countries, especially the UK.
When someone wants to sound clever, they quote one of the latest statistical surveys taken.
If sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, then statistics are the lowest form of reasoning.
They are also the root of speculative trading...and NOONE needs to be told how messed up that idea is.
 
Acinonyx said:
I'll admit, abruptly removing guns from a fairly gun-saturated society such as yours would probably be a bad idea. However, both of the reasons you claim for keeping weapons - for self-defence and to retain political power - should really have better solutions in a civilized society. I understand that most of you would cling to the 2. amendment to the bitter end, and I respect that. I just hope you don't cling to it because of tenets, beliefs or plain'ol stubbornness but rather that you engage the idea an open mind and some politically neutral info and decide from there.

And lastly, I'll respect gravertoms admonition by not fuelling this debate further. I think it's safe to say that whether you guys get to keep your guns or not is neither my business nor my concern. From my point of view the only thing which kept this debate going was a series of (what I perceived to be) aggressive and impolite posts by Sharp Phil. I don't really think anyone enters a thread like Sharp Phil did not intending to start a flame war. Still, my word are my own and I'll stick by them. I am terribly sorry if any of you good cantina fellas took my words too much to heart. As I said - I don't really care one way or the other about how you do things politically over there, I just don't want you to get hurt.
Click to expand...

Are you so unable to support your opinions that you must make direct and personal attacks, rather than simply substantiating why you believe what you believe? I've not said anything to you that was either "aggressive" or "impolite." I believe I've been quite civil in explaining to you why you are wrong. There is nothing personal about telling you that your opinions are based on ignorance. Ignorance is simply a lack of understanding of the subject.

You speak of "better solutions" in a "civilized society." This is not reality. This is wishful thinking. Substituting wishful thinking for reality is the mark of an opinion expressed from lack of understanding.

If you "don't want people to get hurt," you won't advocate things that ultimately endanger their lives. Disarming citizens of ANY society, "saturated" or not, endangers them. This is simple logic and common sense, even once we get past the utilitarian argument, the constitutional argument, and the moral argument.

Acinonyx said:
As I said, I respect your opinions wholeheartedly, and if you believe that arming yourself is the answer, then it probably is. I live in a different place and under different conditions, and the fact that I don't need to arm myself gives me a sense of freedom I wouldn't trade for anything.
Click to expand...

Your emotions are not tools of cognition. Your desire to feel a certain way is the problem here; you are letting your need to possess a certain feeling override your capacity to consider these issues rationally. This is not about how you feel or wish to feel. Only objective reality has any bearing here.
 
Just a sidebar.... I'm Sorry:o I felt like someone had misplaced their splitting maul 8" deep in my cranium last night. I should have just slept it off and came back into this thread fresh this morning.

You guys are keeping this debate spirited and lively. I appreciate y'all's candor while keeping it civil. Keep it the way it's going. This is a very interesting and spirited debate we have going here.
 
Quote:
Political disputes are usually managed politically. Very few guns there.

Are you BLIND!!!!???!! "Political disputes are usually managed politically. Very few guns there". I cant believe this. I know I am not allowed to use profanity on this forum, so I wont. But there is little other way to respond to a stupid statement like this.

FACT: ALL THE WARS EVER FOUGHT, EVER, HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY POLITICAL DISPUTES. PLENTY GUNS. PLENTY MINDLESS KILLINGS, YOU IDIOT!

I need to chill out now.
Going to roll one (figuratively) and try not to think about how many stupid people there are in the world that continue to steal our oxygen.

Sorry Steely, I just lost it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top