Posted by Swissboy on 01/09 at 09:01 AM (Link to this comment)

“It’s illegal in America too.  Funny how that works.Is it ? I’m pretty sure it must be legal to own an AK in some parts of the US.”

It’s very hard and expensive to own an AK. I think you have to register as a collector and pay a bunch of large fees and have a serious background check (not just a 1 minute computer check).

A lot of us are gun owners on MW but I doubt any of us have gone through the process to own actual automatic weapons (actually, I don’t know anyone who has). You can own a semi automatic AK but that should have another name than AK-47… for instance, the American M-16 has another designation in it’s semi automatic form.

w0rf-

The point is, let the people choose for themselves what is best to defend their homes and lives.

That one has been bugging me.  And the problem I have with it is, I feel my neighbors having guns would have an affect on me.  I dont know that I could rationally explain it.  Its the fear of the gun being stolen (and obviously, whoever steals it, aint just going to lock it up in their home for self protection).  Its the fear of my neighbor using it in public, even if its for what he considers a good reason.  I have some neighbors that it probably wouldnt bother me.  I have others I wouldnt lend $100 to, so my trust of them isnt too great to begin with.  This is just not a situation I would prefer to live in.  I feel totally safe walking at night here, without a gun.  And that feels pretty normal to me.  Walking around with a gun and feeling safe would feel quite abnormal.

Dont get me wrong though, Im not a complete idiot about it.  I wouldnt dare to move to a US city with conceal n carry laws, and start complaining that everyone has guns.  It would be like you moving up here and complaining that your kids have no one to play with sat & sun mornings because all their friends are at hockey practice.  :)

Fear not Wally, Im from Canada, and have no desire at all to take your gun away.  Do your best to make sure it doesnt fall into the wrong hands, and dont bring it with you shopping in any Canadian cities.  Other than that, enjoy the country life!  Man, what I wouldnt do for a few acres and still be able to walk to the store

You might not want to take my gun but many people do, and if you support any of those gun laws there, then your in support of stripping people of having a gun, of having that choice.

That one has been bugging me.  And the problem I have with it is, I feel my neighbors having guns would have an affect on me.  I dont know that I could rationally explain it.  Its the fear of the gun being stolen (and obviously, whoever steals it, aint just going to lock it up in their home for self protection).  Its the fear of my neighbor using it in public, even if its for what he considers a good reason.  I have some neighbors that it probably wouldnt bother me.  I have others I wouldnt lend $100 to, so my trust of them isnt too great to begin with.  This is just not a situation I would prefer to live in.  I feel totally safe walking at night here, without a gun.  And that feels pretty normal to me.  Walking around with a gun and feeling safe would feel quite abnormal.

There is no reason to be more scared if they have a gun, if they want to kill ya they can do it in a number of ways..in fact arsons scares me more than anything..and in this drought everytime i see a firetruck scream by i wonder if my house will be burned next because some idiot tossed a cig out the window or had to burn his garbage after months of no rain.

life is full of trouble brought on by the idiots in the world around us, no need to be more worried over guns being in the hands of the people next door..in fact i feel safer knowing that they could back me up if i needed help.

though really i never put much thought into it, i never see anyone run out and shoot the people living next door , well there was one time last year near paris, but the cops should have arrested him after his threats, cussing and shooting guns off befre, it’s all on the cops heads, there was plenty of warning signs, even swissboy could have figured it out.

so i don’t think you would have to worry if the people next door had a gun...no one i know of ever gave it much thought.

Dont get me wrong though, Im not a complete idiot about it.  I wouldnt dare to move to a US city with conceal n carry laws, and start complaining that everyone has guns.  It would be like you moving up here and complaining that your kids have no one to play with sat & sun mornings because all their friends are at hockey practice.

i would not complain..i would just give the kids a video game and tell them you dont need friends, you just super mario brothers.

it worked for me.

Wally,

You seem like a reasonable responsible guy.  All Im saying is, I believe introducing handguns into Canada in the same manner they are accepted in the US, all at once, would be just as ‘jolting’ as taking your guns away from you.  Correct me if Im wrong, but I get the impression that guns arent just a tool to defend yourself in the US, they are also a symbol for you.  A symbol of freedom, and part of what makes you American.  Trust me, I dont mean that in any sort of derogatory fashion. 

Ive accepted that taking guns away from Americans (well, most anyway), will not solve any problems, but create them.  Trust me, in Canada, the same would be true for introducing them.

Yeah but not weapons, clothes, trucks, generators, rations, beds… nothing to do with the debate.

Really? Hmm then either I have been misinformed or you are lying. I read an article where citizens were allowed to purchase surplus weapons. One man purchased a twin 40mm Bofors AA. He put it in his front yard.

“He said for years even the Swiss federal government sold to private civilians “all manner of military surplus, including antiaircraft guns, cannon and machine guns.”

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34751

(NOTE)
Apparently this practice recently ended but still. You don’t allude to that. At least I will be honest. Something you apparently are having problems with. See below.

A FASS-90 IS NOT A GUN !!!!

It is a gun and an assault rifle. Amazing you can’t see that

it’s a large assault rifle for which nobody has bullets ! the government distribute them in case of national crisis.

That kind of goes contrary to Switzerland’s statements that they can muster the militia in 12 hours time.

Read below.

“Famously, members of the armed forces keep their rifles, ammunition, and uniforms in their homes for immediate mobilisation. Swiss military doctrines are arranged in peculiar ways to make this organisation effective. Switzerland claims to be able to mobilize the entire population for warfare within 12 hours.”

“The Swiss people are advised to keep the ammunition and the rifle in separate places, both out of reach of unauthorised users. 50 rounds of ammunition are issued along with the rifle for use only in wartime. The ammunition is stored in a tamper-evident sealed box that should never be opened unless ordered to do so. The abuse of military rifles is extremely rare, and when it does occur, it is usually in the form of suicide.”

http://www.answers.com/topic/military-of-switzerland

Me thinks someone is lying

The last time the munitions were distributed was around 1940 when Hitler menaced to invade Switzerland.

That my friend is a flat out lie

“After basic training, each soldier receives a military firearm and ammunition to keep at home, to facilitate rapid mobilisation of the armed forces. The ammunition is received in a sealed box, which may be opened only in a warlike emergency. The box and the seal on it are checked during every service, that is at least once every year.”

It is never use in self-defance, nobody got killed by a Fass-90 in Switzerland EVER !

Another lie

“The call by Ruth Metler comes just a week before the second anniversary of Switzerland’s worst multiple gun homicide. Nearly two years ago, a lone gunman armed with a fully automatic military rifle stormed the parliament building in Zug and killed 14 elected officials. A similar number were wounded, said reports. “

And you cannot go out and purchase a gun. You need to take classes, have a permit and you still can’t load it. Just keep it at your house that’s all.

So, you didn’t serve did you?

You cant even carry it UNLOADED in the street !

Why would you want to?

Even Swiss SOLDIERS don’t have guns sometimes, like in Kosovo for exemple ! Get that ! They don’t give guns to soldiers, regardless of the ridicule, I think it shows pretty well that Switzerland has a strong dislike for guns in general.

Read below.

“The tradition still lives in Switzerland today. All able-bodied males from 20 to 42 years of age are required to keep rifles or handguns at home. Gun shops are everywhere. A Zurich tourist brochure recommends people visit September’s Knabenschiessen (a young person’s shooting contest): “The oldest Zurich tradition . . . consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fair.”

The above quote does not demonstrate a strong dislike of firearms by the Swiss. On the contrary it shows an enjoyment of them.

I think someone is lying again. Seems to be a pattern for apparently

That’s just fantastic Crocodile Dundee, problem is my point was that you dont need them.

Nice way to act like an adult. Grow up brat.

A rifle does just as well.

Why the hell would I want to use a rifle on a rattler? Are you really this stupid?
Grab my 30-30 and shoot a snake. Ok.

Dolt

So ridicule, did you realy hope to justify a $1 trillion bussines with a ratlesnake ???

I’m justifying nothing. I apparently have an understanding of firearms you lack. I know you don’t shoot a snake with a high-powered rifle. I do it with a handgun. You really are a deceitful little man, aren’t you? It helps if you tell the truth one in a while.

The law being broken is not a reason to take the law off the books.  A law itself is not a deterent.  If it were, neither of our countries would have prisons.  Speeding law attempt to prevent morons from bobbing and weaving through traffic a 200 km/h.  Drug laws say that if you sell drugs to kids at a high school, you are going to jail.  These things still happen.  It doesnt mean the laws are completly ‘useless’.

Yes, but a speed law is different from saying that cars are unsafe, therefore people should be outlawed from even HAVING one.

Now what is it about guns that people feel they are dangerous?  They kill people.  IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO KILL PEOPLE.  Therefore even if there were no regulations on guns whatsoever, that restriction on the use of a gun ALREADY EXISTS.  Regulating a gun beyond that is saying “it’s not good enough that you don’t shoot people with your gun, you also can’t be allowed to do these other things either”.  Banning a military-grade weapon like a tank or a missile makes sense.  Banning a gun which is identical to another gun, except for the threaded barrel, does not.

And the problem I have with it is, I feel my neighbors having guns would have an affect on me.  I dont know that I could rationally explain it.  Its the fear of the gun being stolen (and obviously, whoever steals it, aint just going to lock it up in their home for self protection).  Its the fear of my neighbor using it in public, even if its for what he considers a good reason.  I have some neighbors that it probably wouldnt bother me.  I have others I wouldnt lend $100 to, so my trust of them isnt too great to begin with.  This is just not a situation I would prefer to live in.

But the underpinning logic of that stance is that people can’t be trusted unless the government holds their hand every step of the way and protects them from their own idiocy.  But don’t representative democracies pick their leaders from among that pool of idiots?  So how many of our liberties are we going to cede to a smaller group of idiots because we are convinced that we’re too stupid to handle it ourselves?

As for a gun being stolen, if you are properly maintaining your weapon in the first place, this is not an issue.  A gun should be kept locked and unloaded in a cabinet, with ammunition stored locked in a separate place.  If someone steals your gun from your home, they are either looking for it (which how do they know you even have one, or where it’s kept?), or you’re being irresponsible with your firearm.

That my friend is a flat out lie

Certainly not, the last time the milita was mobilized was during the second world war, fact which you can find in a link you YOURSELF provided.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34751

It is never use in

self-defance

, nobody got killed by a Fass-90 in Switzerland EVER !Another lie

Exept in cases of suicide allright, they use the most convenient mean… not exactly gang wafare.

So, you didn’t serve did you?

Sadly I had to. Humorless people I tell you.

The above quote does not demonstrate a strong dislike of firearms by the Swiss. On the contrary it shows an enjoyment of them.

Once again I will send you back to your own link, amazing how you repeatedly proved YOURSELF wrong…

3 laws limiting the use of firearms in less than 10 years and a 4th on the way (not in the article I think, must be voted soon by the parliament, I don’t know if it will pass or not though).

While the little shooting contest you found is very charming, as most of Switzerland, you might want to spend a vacation, It proves nothing at all regarding the Swiss population position toward firearms.

I notice you eluded the remarks about Kosovo… talking about selective editing…

“The Swiss people are advised to keep the ammunition and the rifle in separate places, both out of reach of unauthorised users. 50 rounds of ammunition are issued along with the rifle for use only in wartime.

The army reform called army 21 (I translated) ended that habit, no lies at all see !

You really are a deceitful little man, aren’t you?

methink someone’s peiced about crocodile dundee....

You actually are making the argument that the purpose of a law is SOLELY to outlaw something?  That laws are not intended to have an effect?

Last time I checked it had an effect to outlaw something… but that’s just liberal logic, dont pay attention.

That’s a really really stupid position to take.

Hey, I’m just a bot remember ? I’m doing my best here have some compassion for my sub-human capacities.

You might not want to take my gun but many people do

Damn bastards… hide it under your pillow Wally.

I notice you eluded the remarks about Kosovo… talking about selective editing…

Comments about selective editing are not welcome from someone who claimed an assault rifle was not a gun and refused to address the point when several people brought it up.

Last time I checked it had an effect to outlaw something…

But to what end?  Is murder a crime just so you can say “well, murder’s not allowed here” or is it with the intent that people should not kill each other.  Your logic is so simplistic as to be a non-starter for any reasonable discourse.

Hey, I’m just a bot remember ?

Hey, look, it admitted to being a bot. Jim, Lee, para, you don’t allow spambots on this site, right?

This talk about selfdefense and so on listen...you’re not in a action movie,this is not the world were you can jump 180 degree and shot the bad guy in the leg.
I’m 100% sure a lot of the handicapped people or womens doesnt shoot accurate,or they can take up their gun in a second.And im 100% sure that in 95% of all kills off innocent people,the bad guys has been the first one to shot…
To actually belive anyone here or having a gun would be calm enough to handle a gun in a situation like that is just absurd.
Ban guns!!!

That gang problem someone talked about,would never happend in sweden,cause here we check our gangs,and take their weapons,we know where they are,if thet got a knife/gun thety gonna be stripped on it and get to jail.

The only problem with sweden is the rapes,that is being taken care of as i write,putting up cameras that some people observe and then if they see something wron being able to call the police and send them to places that they might think or know someonething bad is happening are a good wait to interfer rapes.
Which its already proven a dozen times so far.

Your logic is so simplistic as to be a non-starter for any reasonable discourse.

Admitedly, however it was a response to a simplistic and eroneus claim :

That a law is useless it can be easyly violated.

Is murder a crime just so you can say “well, murder’s not allowed here” or is it with the intent that people should not kill each other.

Syllogism, Murder is illegal therefore it is a crime therefore it is pusished therefore it will reduce people’s tendency to kill each other.

Same goes for drugs, rape, guns or anything that is outlawed.

That a law is useless it can be easyly violated.

read if, ...()if it can be…

Comments about selective editing are not welcome from someone who claimed an assault rifle was not a gun and refused to address the point when several people brought it up.

I did adress it and was subsequently wrongly called a liar on an arm long post by Thorisin.

I spend enough time on this one, everybody will agree to that I think.

Here is my last though, with no guns, it is physicaly imposible to shoot someone.

Whatever argument the right makes up in order to save that juicy business and keep their precious toys, nothing can counter that.

This is where it ends for me.

it is physicaly imposible to shoot someone

So what do you do with a bow or crossbow or caterpult or blow pipe? use it like a baseball bat!

Admitedly, however it was a response to a simplistic and eroneus claim :

That a law is useless it can be easyly violated.

Incorrect.  It is useless if it does not have the intended effect.  The only possible use for a law banning guns is to remove guns from society.  It has not happened.  You can’t argue that gun laws are to stop people from killing each other, this is already against the law.  You can’t argue that gun laws are to stop people from shooting each other, this is already against the law.  You can’t argue that gun laws are to stop gang wars, those are already against the law.

Therefore, only two things can come from a law banning guns.  Either a). a criminal with a gun will be charged with illegal possession, despite already being charged with murder or robbery or whatever, so he’s already going to jail, and you also failed to keep it out of his hands, or b). an innocent civilian who happens to possess a firearm is automatically a criminal even though he did not perpetrate any other crime against any other person, and did not exercise any intent to do so.

Syllogism, Murder is illegal therefore it is a crime therefore it is pusished therefore it will reduce people’s tendency to kill each other.

OK, so what is the intended social consequence of banning guns?  What behavior is it intended to reduce?

I did adress it and was subsequently wrongly called a liar on an arm long post by Thorisin.

You did not address it, sir.  You said that an assault rifle is not a gun, several of us corrected you on that point and I have seen no comment from you since that point, explaining how an assault rifle is not a gun.  Is it not designed to shoot things?  Does it not use bullets?  Explain the difference.

Here is my last though, with no guns, it is physicaly imposible to shoot someone.

With no dicks, it is physically impossible to rape someone.  I still have not received a response on this point.  Let me add some more:
- with no knives, it is impossible to stab someone
- with no cars, it is impossible to run someone over, with no blunt heavy objects
- it is impossible to knock someone over the head.

So if you’re serious about disarming the populace, you have a lot more work to do, it seems.

Swissboy
Here is my last though, with no guns, it is physicaly imposible to shoot someone.

I’m not so sure about that one, I tend to believe that where there’s a will, there’s a way.... ;)

Beach man charged in wife’s death by crossbow

By STEVE STONE, The Virginian-Pilot
© January 9, 2006

VIRGINIA BEACH — A 44-year-old woman, injured accidentally in October by a crossbow she and her husband owned, was killed Sunday when an arrow hit her in the back.

Police said that this time it was no accident, however. They have charged the victim’s husband with murder.

(more at link)

Syllogism, Murder is illegal therefore it is a crime therefore it is pusished therefore it will reduce people’s tendency to kill each other.

Same goes for drugs, rape, guns or anything that is outlawed.

So making murder illegal lowers the likelyhood that people will kill each other.  That makes sense.  But people know that it is illegal and make the concious decision to do it anyway.  They are already breaking the law.  How does making guns illegal fit in?

Swissboy, what you are missing is that you are mistaking the tool for the action.  I don’t have time right now to look up the stats (if someone out there wants to look them up for me, that would be great), but if my memory serves me, last year we had approximately 20,000 murders in the US.  12,000 of those were committed with guns.  That leaves 8,000 murders that used other means (and if guns were more difficult to get your hands on, I’d bet that at least 4,000 of those gun murders would have been committed by other means).  A gun is nothing more than a tool, and like any tool, it can be used properly or improperly.  The crime is murder, and you should be punished for that crime regardless of the tool used to commit it.  And you should not make it illegal to for citizens to own a tool because it has to potential to be used improperly.  Should we outlaw cars, kitchen knives, baseball bats, rope, piano wire, and axes because they could be used to commit a murder? 

And are you really trying to tell us that this…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fass90-bayonette-p1000786.jpg

…is not an assault rifle?  And the fact that every Swiss household with a man aged 20-42 has one does not constitute a high rate of gun ownership??  Are you kidding?!?!

Sir Not Appearing In This Film

The last time the munitions were distributed was around 1940 when Hitler menaced to invade Switzerland.

That my friend is a flat out lie

Certainly not, the last time the milita was mobilized was during the second world war, fact which you can find in a link you YOURSELF provided.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34751

Actually, thats not what he said.  He said:

“After basic training, each soldier receives a military firearm and ammunition to keep at home, to facilitate rapid mobilisation of the armed forces. The ammunition is received in a sealed box, which may be opened only in a warlike emergency. The box and the seal on it are checked during every service, that is at least once every year.”

He was disputing you saying that ammunition had not been distributed since 1940, NOT that that was the last time the militia had been mobilized.

And are you really trying to tell us that this…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fass90-bayonette-p1000786.jpg

…is not an assault rifle?

No, he said that it was an assault rifle.  But in the same paragraph he said that it was not a GUN.

This talk about selfdefense and so on listen...you’re not in a action movie,this is not the world were you can jump 180 degree and shot the bad guy in the leg.

oh quit acting like people want to be bruce willis or arnold, people have defended their self ad homes many times, you don’t have to do all the action movie moves to be able to defend yourself.

I’m 100% sure a lot of the handicapped people or womens doesnt shoot accurate,or they can take up their gun in a second.

did you hear about the case down in texas a few months back about the old woman, in her 60’s i believe it was, who had a guy break in while running from the cops and hid in her house, she was able to shoot the guy..and was able to shoot him in the leg so as to avoid killing him and then held him off her and her granddaughter till the cops showed up, he limped away but they got him.

and my father might be handicapped but he is a great shot and keeps a gun by him, so he an get to it and you better damn well believe he could shoot the balls off a tick from 100 yards.

And im 100% sure that in 95% of all kills off innocent people,the bad guys has been the first one to shot…
To actually belive anyone here or having a gun would be calm enough to handle a gun in a situation like that is just absurd.
Ban guns!!!

so all the cases of people defending themselves never happen i guess? therehas been many cases that prove you wrong, time after time.

That gang problem someone talked about,would never happend in sweden,cause here we check our gangs,and take their weapons,we know where they are,if thet got a knife/gun thety gonna be stripped on it and get to jail.

see the problem is, gangs are crooks, they hide weapons, if the cops coke around you think they will just cokme out and hand over their guns? their crooks.

Wally,

You seem like a reasonable responsible guy.

got you fooled then..heh.

All Im saying is, I believe introducing handguns into Canada in the same manner they are accepted in the US, all at once, would be just as ‘jolting’ as taking your guns away from you.  Correct me if Im wrong, but I get the impression that guns arent just a tool to defend yourself in the US, they are also a symbol for you.  A symbol of freedom, and part of what makes you American.  Trust me, I dont mean that in any sort of derogatory fashion.

they are not a symbol of freedom to me, they are a tool and my freedom lets me choose to use it, but i don’t see them as a symbol of that freedom anymore than i do when i use free speech.

and if there is problems with letting the flood gates of guns into the country, well then perhaps little by little let them back in, repeal laws slowy, but i do think the right thing is to let people choose, give them the freedom to choose if they want the gun, don’t add more laws or keep the system the way it is.

Maybe Swissboy’s just aware of how, in the United States Army, at least, you can get in quite a lot of trouble for referring to your rifle as a gun. Your weapon is your rifle, your gun is what you keep in your pants, thus the old marching cadence “This is my rifle, this is my gun! This is for fighting, this is for fun!”
As he has said, Swissboy does not believe in having guns. He doesn’t have a gun and doesn’t want his countrymen to have guns, and he damn sure wishes that all these annoying Americans he deals with didn’t have such big guns.

Certainly not, the last time the milita was mobilized was during the second world war, fact which you can find in a link you YOURSELF provided.

I made no mention of the militia being called up. My link and my intent were to prove you had made false statements that pertained to no one having ammunition at their home. My like showed that. You then try to change the issue of what I was stating. This was also pointed out by Temjob. he got it. why not you?
Would you like to move the goalposts some more?

Exept in cases of suicide allright, they use the most convenient mean… not exactly gang wafare.

No, you claimed that, and I quote, “It is never use in self-defance [sic], nobody got killed by a Fass-90 in Switzerland EVER !”

I posted information that refuted that statement. And now you are claiming it is only used in suicide. Kind of hard to do with a weapon that has no ammunition. What do you do, load it with harsh words?

Once again I will send you back to your own link, amazing how you repeatedly proved YOURSELF wrong…

My like was used to show that there were some who enjoyed firearms. Stronger laws for firearms do not invalidate that comment. But what it did do was show you were being deceitful. You claimed, and I again quote, “I think it shows pretty well that Switzerland has a strong dislike for guns in general.”
What I posted proves that the Swiss do not have a strong dislike for guns in general, not if you have a group participating in shooting functions. YOU may have that but the last time I checked you were not the whole Swiss nation.

notice you eluded the remarks about Kosovo

I didn’t comment on Kosovo because I have no idea what the Swiss’s duties were. What was their MOS? Were they combat? Unlike you I don’t comment on things I don’t know. I also am not the one who has been proven to be lying on this board.

talking about selective editing…

Selective editing? I posted information and links that refuted you statements. You then cherry picked information that was not germane to either your comments or mine and tired to point out that I was wrong. Nice job.

no lies at all see !

No, I still see several. Keep on trying

By the way, if you don’t like being called a liar don’t get caught lying next time.

Swissboys argument has more holes than...Swiss Cheese!

i’ll be here all night folks....i gotta million of them.

Maybe Swissboy’s just aware of how, in the United States Army, at least, you can get in quite a lot of trouble for referring to your rifle as a gun. Your weapon is your rifle, your gun is what you keep in your pants, thus the old marching cadence “This is my rifle, this is my gun! This is for fighting, this is for fun!”
As he has said, Swissboy does not believe in having guns. He doesn’t have a gun and doesn’t want his countrymen to have guns, and he damn sure wishes that all these annoying Americans he deals with didn’t have such big guns.

Just thought it should be said again! HA!!!!!!!  I will smile for awhile on that one.

You know, if those assault rifles (not guns) are being used in suicides, doesn’t that mean that people are still being killed by them?  It may be by their own hand, but its still a death by a gun.  Oh sorry assault rifle (not gun)

Actually,i don’t feel like its my holy quest to stop americans to have weapons >_<
However i can’t accept peoples arguments that by implanting weapons to a society would surely lower crimes…

Seeing how all weapons are already out in America its hard to get rid of all weapons there…

The Left, however, ignores the reality of its decisions:  Removing guns is a guaranteed quick fix. Violence will end when guns end. Guns are bad, they make people kill people. Nothing bad will happen when guns are removed. It’s the only right decision to make. There is no downside. You’re stupid if you think otherwise.

This si what annoys me - stop characterising the arguments wrong - at least have the intellectual integrity to argue agaisnt the other sides position correctly.

um, swissboy, do you realize that by making the object in question illegal, then EVERYBODY’S hands are automatically the wrong hands?  Suddenly everybody who even possesses a firearm is by default a criminal.  Why?

Because (in the majority of Europe) the only people who would want to own a gun would be the criminals. The vast majority of law abiding citizens don’t shoot for sport, or want to use guns for self defence. The only reason someone might own a gun would be for mishceif. I agree that this is not the case for the US, but please stop trying to draw parrallels between two countries.

and if there is problems with letting the flood gates of guns into the country, well then perhaps little by little let them back in, repeal laws slowy, but i do think the right thing is to let people choose, give them the freedom to choose if they want the gun, don’t add more laws or keep the system the way it is.

Here is where the logic is flawed. If you relax the gun laws, up4 and his law abiding buddies would not buy them - they’d all continue playing hockey or eating maple syrup. It would, however, be the new must have accessory for the aspiring mugger or burgalar.

Now what is it about guns that people feel they are dangerous?  They kill people.  IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO KILL PEOPLE.  Therefore even if there were no regulations on guns whatsoever, that restriction on the use of a gun ALREADY EXISTS.

Good point - but leaving aside murders for a second - surely guns also make it easier to commit a robbery/mugging/burlary/assault/rape/coup d’etat. Again, if the only feasible reason someone owns a gun is to cause trouble, isn’t it reasonable to assume that person has nefarious intentions? (Resisting the impulse to link this point to wmds!! ;-) )

Here is where the logic is flawed. If you relax the gun laws, up4 and his law abiding buddies would not buy them - they’d all continue playing hockey or eating maple syrup. It would, however, be the new must have accessory for the aspiring mugger or burgalar.

but the crooks are already getting them, that’s the point of the article, you have 17 year old crooks with a history of such things getting AK’s, gun crimes are going up as shown in other such articles, so don’t worry about crooks getting them if guns were allowed..they lready have them!

Hey Wally!

No what i’m saying is it would be better of letting people choose if they want a nuclear warhead or not, i like freedom, it’s a strange hang up of mine, and i feel it’s better to let people choose what they want to do (the left is always preaching choice strangly but only for what they choose), if you don’t want a nuclear warhead, if your afraid it will jump out and start shooting people then don’t buy it. but please, don’t take away my hoice, my choice to protect myself and my family as i choose.

for me a nuclear warhead is the best protection possible, i live out in the country so cops are little help with people or animals, alarms won’t do a thing, and i can protect my family well with a nuclear warhead, it allows my father, a cripple, to stand up to some young thief he would otherwise lose to..even a girlscout could beat him.

but places like canda and the left want to take away my nuclear warhead, a nuclear warhead that has never killed any person, that has never caused an accident, that is correctly stored and taken care of...does that seem right?

oh god, the nuclear option, in all my years of debating they never fail to bring it up at least once, as poor an argument as it is, though it does signal that they have little left to say.

No what i’m saying is it would be better of letting people choose if they want a gun or not

But you can own guns in Canada!  The law does restrict what types of guns you can own (same as here, depending on the state or city).  Are you saying that Canadians should be allowed to choose any kind of weapon? 

I’m not sure I get the point of posting this article.  So a kid in Canada manages to get a hold of an illegal gun and the police takes it away from him.  What point is this supposed to illustrate?  Gun laws dont work? Nope, this is a clear case of them working. Gun restrictions are bad? More guns in Canada would make it a better place? I’m really not sure what this is supposed to tell me.

I agree that this is not the case for the US, but please stop trying to draw parrallels between two countries.

I’m not.  He’s the one who wants the US to be like Switzerland.  And the very fact that people desire firearms for different reasons makes it impractical to deprive people of liberties based on what you think their motives might be.  That is thought policing.

It would, however, be the new must have accessory for the aspiring mugger or burgalar.

It already is.

surely guns also make it easier to commit a robbery/mugging/burlary/assault/rape/coup d’etat.

All of which are against the law.  So people can be punished for those things with absolutely no regard for the legality of guns.

Again, if the only feasible reason someone owns a gun is to cause trouble, isn’t it reasonable to assume that person has nefarious intentions?

But we’ve already established that you cannot assume someone’s motives based on the mere desire to own one.  If you’re going to put people in jail just based on what YOU THINK that they MIGHT WANT to do, and not based on anything they HAVE DONE, then I have no desire to live in your country.

i live out in the country so cops are little help with people or animals, alarms won’t do a thing, and i can protect my family well with a nuclear warhead, it allows my father, a cripple, to stand up to some young thief he would otherwise lose to..even a girlscout could beat him.

A nuclear warhead is impractical for home defense, as it takes time to arm, target, launch and strike the invader.  It is also too big to carry on your person, and prohibitively expensive to store safely, presents a radioactive danger to the person and his neighbors, and oh yeah, it will make everything within 10 miles of his home uninhabitable for about 10,000 years.  In terms of making a home safe to live, it doesn’t fit the bill quite as nicely.

In short, your comparison is stupid.

So a kid in Canada manages to get a hold of an illegal gun and the police takes it away from him.  What point is this supposed to illustrate?  Gun laws dont work? Nope, this is a clear case of them working.

This is a clear case of them NOT working.  He had a criminal record and STILL got a gun.  No, not a gun, A STASH of guns.

You further neglect to mention that he was charged with a number of crimes completely unrelated to possession of a firearm.  Even if guns were 100% legal, he still would have been a criminal, who could be charged and hauled off to jail.

This is a clear case of them NOT working.  He had a criminal record and STILL got a gun.  No, not a gun, A STASH of guns.

Guns laws dont work because he had a gun?  He had the gun taken away.  He was arrested and will be charged.  As far as we know, gun laws, in this case, prevented him from using the gun on anyone, or giving/selling the gun to someone else who would use it on someone.

Are you saying whatever laws he broke in possessing this gun should not be in place?

By your standards, is there ANY law that does work?  I would guess not.  But I dont think you are saying there shouldnt be any laws.  I think thats where the confusion lies.

Guns laws dont work because he had a gun?

Gun laws don’t work because just having possession of the gun would have put him in jail even if he had never committed a crime in his life.  Neither was it an effective deterrent, because he still managed to get a hold of one, and I don’t see his supplier going to jail.

As far as we know, gun laws, in this case, prevented him from using the gun on anyone

We already have laws to prevent him from using the gun on anyone.  Murder.  Assault.  Armed robbery.

By your standards, is there ANY law that does work?  I would guess not.  But I dont think you are saying there shouldnt be any laws.  I think thats where the confusion lies.

It’s pretty simple, I already outlined the principle earlier.  Murder is a criminal act which infringes on the liberty and well-being of other people.  So is rape.  So is robbery.  The laws are meant to deter people from doing these things to other people, and then prosecuting them for their disruption to social order.

NOW… people say gun laws are in place so that people can’t use guns to kill or rape or rob.  BUT YOU ALREADY CAN’T USE GUNS TO KILL OR RAPE OR ROB.  THOSE ARE ALREADY CRIMES.  The presence of the gun is not relevant.

The other half of the argument is that guns should be taken away from people so thaty they don’t HAVE the tools to commit these other crimes.  But since nobody has stood up to say that all the other tools I mentioned should be banned, and we’ve seen that people are still committing crimes with guns, I am forced to question:

- why single out only one criminal tool
- why make criminals out of people who do not otherwise present any danger to society
- why deprive innocent people of liberties if it does not increase the level of security

Vehicular homicide is a crime, but no one tries to take my car away from me before I have the chance to commit a crime with it, or sell it to someone who will.  Quick, someone come save mankind from my car!

w0rf-

I hear what you are saying, it makes very good sense, and works well for you Im sure.  But do you think this kid, or any 17 year old kid should have an AK-47?  Shouldnt there be a law against that?  True, its just taking away a tool, but honestly, I dont have a problem with that.

Would you agree that illegal handguns (in Canada or the US) are a problem?  When I say illegal handguns, I mean handguns criminals obtain through illegal means (stolen etc...).  Doesnt it make sense that the more handguns that are in the general population legally, has a direct connect to the number of “illegal” handguns?  Wouldnt it be far easier to find a handgun to steal in the US, than it would in Canada where there arent as many?  Even taking into account the 10:1 population difference. 

Where do you think there are more “illegal” handguns, on the streets of the US, or Canada?  Why?

But do you think this kid, or any 17 year old kid should have an AK-47?

Are you now making a distinction between a child and an adult?  If so, why pass laws that prevent ADULTS from having guns in order to stop the kids?

Would you agree that illegal handguns (in Canada or the US) are a problem?

Despite your attempt to qualify your question, the fact remains that criminalizing possession means that ALL handguns are automatically illegal, ALL means of acquiring them are illegal means, and ALL owners of handguns are automatically criminals without regard for motive, intent, or lack of any other criminal action.

Are you now saying that guns should be outlawed so that they don’t get stolen?

More to the point, suppose I, having no ill intent toward any man, and having never gotten anything worse than a speeding ticket, had a handgun to protect my family, which I kept unloaded and locked in a cabinet, with ammunition locked in a separate cabinet, took it out once a year to clean and oil it as necessary, and to brush up on the shooting range, and lived the rest of my life just like that, I am a criminal who deserves to have his liberties stripped, taken from his family whom he works hard to protet and care for, and tossed into jail?

A nuclear warhead is impractical for home defense, as it

takes time to arm, target, launch and strike the invader.  It is also too big to carry on your person, and prohibitively expensive to store safely, presents a radioactive danger to the person and his neighbors, and oh yeah, it will make everything within 10 miles of his home uninhabitable for about 10,000 years.  In terms of making a home safe to live, it doesn’t fit the bill quite as nicely.

In short, your comparison is stupid.

And they say the rightwingers have no humor !

Are you now making a distinction between a child and an adult?  If so, why pass laws that prevent ADULTS from having guns in order to stop the kids?

Um.  Well, it appears as though you attempted to answer my question with 2 questions.  Interesting.  Im going to guess then, that you agree this kid shouldnt be able to get an AK-47.  There should be a “gun” law against this.  No?

Are you now saying that guns should be outlawed so that they don’t get stolen?

That is one very good reason. You didnt answer this question though…

Where do you think there are more “illegal” handguns, on the streets of the US, or Canada?  Why?

I am a criminal who deserves to have his liberties stripped, taken from his family whom he works hard to protet and care for, and tossed into jail?

I am going to guess you meant “Am I”.  Well, only if it was illegal where you live.  If not, I would say you would have a great community if everyone where like you.  But thats a pipe dream isnt it?

had a handgun to protect my family, which I kept unloaded and locked in a cabinet, with ammunition locked in a separate cabinet

Well, I would question how you intended to use that in a situation requiring you to act promptly, but that’s more a question of ease of use than your rights and intent. n.n

We already have laws to prevent him from using the gun on anyone.  Murder.  Assault.  Armed robbery.

I’m saying that a law that makes it harder to get away with these crimes might be a good idea. Punishment for robbery only has any effect if the possiblility of getting caught is high. You are more likely to get away with a robbery if armed.... thats the argument.. its not about punishment, its about prevention.

But we’ve already established that you cannot assume someone’s motives based on the mere desire to own one.  If you’re going to put people in jail just based on what YOU THINK that they MIGHT WANT to do, and not based on anything they HAVE DONE, then I have no desire to live in your country

Ah - now we have an interesting moral question - should you be punished for owning a weapon that is clearly for breaking the law - before you actually break the law.

In otherwords - is a pre-emptive strike justified against suspected criminals? :-)

As for the article - ‘gun taken off criminal before he uses it’ sounds to me like it works. I’d rather this person didn’t have a gun.

I would rather have a bomb in my house,so if a killer comes to my home,i can blow myself+the killer.
Whats wrong with having that?
Yeah i want a big missile right in my living room,that i can blow off :P

Um.  Well, it appears as though you attempted to answer my question with 2 questions.  Interesting.  Im going to guess then, that you agree this kid shouldnt be able to get an AK-47.  There should be a “gun” law against this.  No?

I’m of the opinion that children should not own guns.  So what?  They can’t purchase cigarettes or alcohol either.  That has nothing to do with protecting the civil liberties of the citizenry, and everything to do with age of ascendancy.

Where do you think there are more “illegal” handguns, on the streets of the US, or Canada?  Why?

I don’t know, and I don’t see the relevance because, as evidenced by my question, I don’t agree with the line of reasoning that arises from it.

I am going to guess you meant “Am I”.  Well, only if it was illegal where you live.  If not, I would say you would have a great community if everyone where like you.  But thats a pipe dream isnt it?

I meant it as I typed it, the interpretation is identical, there is nothing wrong with the grammatical structure of that sentence, so find better critiques, please.

So basically, I would in fact deserve to go to jail?  And don’t talk to me about pipe dreams in a thread where people are imagining a society where there were no more shootings as we all happily fork over our evil guns to the nice policeman.

Well, I would question how you intended to use that in a situation requiring you to act promptly, but that’s more a question of ease of use than your rights and intent.

Well considering that the first course of action is to call the police anyway, there’s a time delay no matter what, unless I had my wife do the calling.  Still, you have to balance the protection it provides with the responsibility of bearing it, so ease of use is only one of several concerns to factor in.

You are more likely to get away with a robbery if armed....

And what is your basis for this brilliant conclusion?

Ah - now we have an interesting moral question - should you be punished for owning a weapon that is clearly for breaking the law - before you actually break the law.

How is it clearly for breaking the law?

In otherwords - is a pre-emptive strike justified against suspected criminals?

If you start putting people in jail based on what they MIGHT do rather than what they do, it’s 1984 all over again.

As for the article - ‘gun taken off criminal before he uses it’ sounds to me like it works. I’d rather this person didn’t have a gun.

So it’s all right for him to deal crack, as long as he doesn’t shoot anybody?  You do realize the gun charge was only one of 13, right?