Will Swiss stick to their guns? - Page 2

C.Evans · #26 (**permalink**) May 8th, 2007, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

I'd have thought it was obvious, a man with a baseball bat would find it hard to do as much damage as a man with a gun. For one thing all you need to do is grab a chair or something similar and you would be almost as well armed. Also worth remembering that most of the kids responsible for these attacks are generally kids who have been bullied and have rarely fought back physically, it is only when they have guns that they are willing to fight.

_-_-_-_-_-_-

It WAS obvious but, I am merely pointing it out (as if that was not obvious either) that if an insane jerkoff--such as cho was, is bent on causing as much death and distructuion as it wants; then there is nothing short of a gun; that will stop that jerks rampage. Unless of course, that a bunch of innocent bystanders simultaneously decide to jump the jerk ar all costs--which aint likely to happen in most occasions. I forget the name of the term used for that or I would type it here and then you could do some research on it.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

1. Cho was a law abiding citizen with no unlawful past, as for hidden, wel if it's hidden then surely the person is going to be able to get a firearm anyhow.
_-_-_-_-_-

1) Im sorry Stefan, but your explanation above is a very lame excuse for chos actions.
_-_-_-_-_-

2. I'd be willing to put money on a determined intruder being able to get hold of your weapons if he wanted.
_-_-_-_-_-_
2) I would be willing to take that bet ;-D An intruder would have many difficulties in breaking into my place and at the right time and would not have any set amount of time (had my place been watched and the residents of my place's routines were carefully noted) My place aint Fort Knox but, my place aint exactly an easy one to break into. Remember, I am security-minded for one and have a law-enforcement background for another. And if we were all gone at the sametime and away for many hours, the intruder needs to get past all the locks on my doors (providing he gets past the two Great Danes and one German Shephard) that reside there outside. The dogs aint mine but, they belong to other members of the household and as long as thye leave my two Cats alone--im perfectly fine with them being there.

Anyway, once inside, one has to know what they are looking for and where those objects are at. That alone will take more time than a thief will want to take burglarizing my place. If one was stupid enough to try so, and if someone came back home--the bastard intruder; will be taken care of--I can guarantee that. All said and done, whatever happens will be in full accordance with the laws of the City, County and State. That is another guarantee as well.
_-_-_-_-

3. I'm not against gun ownership, I just think that it's not such a bad thing to have levels of control that are greater than you seem to have over there.
-_-_-_-_-
3) It all depends on what those "levels of control" are. To a certain degree, I agree with that. However, as a practicing Constitutionalist, those "levels of control" will have to be strictly set by constitutional standards.
-_-_-_-_-_

I'm not fussed, I get my fix of firearms through my work and boy do we get some good bits of kit to play with sometimes

_-_-_-_-_-

Im not fussed at all either. I own what I figure, is enough firearms but depending on my future wants and needs; that is subject to change. One day, I would not mind owning a Machinegun. As well, on eday, I DO expect to own a 1906 Single-Action Army Colt .45. This particular weapon is my all-time most favorite of firearms.

Za Rodinu · #27 (**permalink**) May 8th, 2007, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.Evans

Unless of course, that a bunch of innocent bystanders simultaneously decide to jump the jerk ar all costs...

Hey, but that's what the passengers in United flight 93 did in Sep.11! With no guns!

Stefan · #28 (**permalink**) May 9th, 2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.Evans

It WAS obvious but, I am merely pointing it out (as if that was not obvious either) that if an insane jerkoff--such as cho was, is bent on causing as much death and distructuion as it wants; then there is nothing short of a gun; that will stop that jerks rampage. Unless of course, that a bunch of innocent bystanders simultaneously decide to jump the jerk ar all costs--which aint likely to happen in most occasions. I forget the name of the term used for that or I would type it here and then you could do some research on it.

You miss my point I think, if he had a gun then nothing but a gun or spontanious group action on the part of bystanders would have stopped him. However, without a gun a single person of greater stature would be enough. You also fail to get past the point that for the most part these kids aren't willing to engage in fisticuffs, without a firearm they aren't willing to do anything.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Quote:

1) Im sorry Stefan, but your explanation above is a very lame excuse for chos actions.

It isn't meant to be an exscuse, you said 'if one is a law-abiding citizen with no hidden or unlawful past, why is it so bad for them to be able to possess a firearm.' I just pointed out that Cho had previously been a law abiding citizen, thus rather nicely demonstrating why it might be a bad thing 'for them to be able to possess a firearm.' If someone's past is hidden you aren't going to know about it to decide whether to let them have a firearm or not.

Quote:

I would be willing to take that bet ;-D An intruder would have many difficulties in breaking into my place and at the right time and would not have any set amount of time (had my place been watched and the residents of my place's routines were carefully noted) My place aint Fort Knox but, my place aint exactly an easy one to break into. Remember, I am security-minded for one and have a law-enforcement background for another. And if we were all gone at the sametime and away for many hours, the intruder needs to get past all the locks on my doors (providing he gets past the two Great Danes and one German Shephard) that reside there outside. The dogs aint mine but, they belong to other members of the household and as long as thye leave my two Cats alone--im perfectly fine with them being there.

If people can successfully rob bank vaults and diamond safes then I reckon they could get into your place.

Quote:

3) It all depends on what those "levels of control" are. To a certain degree, I agree with that. However, as a practicing Constitutionalist, those "levels of control" will have to be strictly set by constitutional standards.

And that is kind of the point of the thread, since there is rarely someone armed with a gun walking around the highschool where these kids rampage, the only real way to deal with them is tighter control over who can get hold of a firearm. What that should be I cannot say but clearly something needs to be done (and I'm talking well thought out, intelligent legislation, not the knee-jerk rubbish we get).

Quote:

Im not fussed at all either. I own what I figure, is enough firearms but depending on my future wants and needs; that is subject to change. One day, I would not mind owning a Machinegun. As well, on eday, I DO expect to own a 1906 Single-Action Army Colt .45. This particular weapon is my all-time most favorite of firearms.

I'm pretty sold on the UGL we get for the SA 80, grenade launchers are the way (to clear) forward

Za Rodinu · #29 (**permalink**) May 9th, 2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

...the only real way to deal with them is tighter control over who can get hold of a firearm. What that should be I cannot say but clearly something needs to be done (and I'm talking well thought out, intelligent legislation, not the knee-jerk rubbish we get).

I agree with all you say, but this legislation is in the main applied to law abiding citizens. "The Law" (latu sensu) controls who may be eligible to purchase weapons and keeps a record of who does. Fine. Problem will always be illegal guns or legal guns that reach the underworld (theft, etc.). So this system imposes restrictions on law-abiding citizens while 'others' are left loose.

Look at this. Over here handguns for self-defence are nearly impossible to purchase for the general population. Eligible people are those who due to the nature of their work carry large amounts of money, judges, lawyers (I agree, everyone should be after them!), people living in isolated places. Even then calibre is limited to a puny 6.35mm (.25"). Sporting guns are different but still very very limited, a pain in the neck.

However, ask me how many handguns of useful calibre I can have access to if I speak to the right guy and show up with the right kind of cash?

This market the law cannot control with laws that impinge only on law-abiding citizens. As our fellow Yanks say, what this does is to curtail access to you and me while leaving the bad guys have what they want.

Stefan · #30 (**permalink**) May 9th, 2007, 11:53 AM

True, but as I see it no amount of legislation will control firearms in the hands of the black market and criminals, however with specific reference to the much publicised school shooting phenomanon it seems obvious that there need to be tighter restrictions on who can get hold of a firearm, more stringent background checks and so on.

That said, I reckon firearm legislation over here is rediculous, based on a series of kneejerk reactions to situations they don't really address. I just think that whatever you want a firearm for, there needs to be some pretty serious thought going into whether you are trustworthy with one. Frankly, I reckon most people are too ignorant to be allowed near a firearm and even with appropriate training are pretty dangerous (speaking as someone who nearly got shot by an idiot on a range).

C.Evans · #31 (**permalink**) May 9th, 2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Za Rodinu

Hey, but that's what the passengers in United flight 93 did in Sep.11! With no guns!

Hi Za, that is true, they did and led by someone who had either some military or some Law Enforcement experiance and also was into Martial Arts. That man was Todd Beamer and his famous expression that was heard before there was silence was: "Let's Roll!" A local radio station talk show host by the name of Eric von Wade, had bumperstickers made up to sell in order to raise money for Todd Beamers family. I bought one and it is displayed on my car.

Back to flight 93. The terrorists did not have guns with them--only box-cutters--and there is a big differance between guns and a small razorblade in a plastic handle. When I was a Correctional Officer--we faced inmates with hommade weapons much more dangerous than a box cutter.

By the way, if you want to check out what Eric von Wade is about, please go to his website-which is: www.ericvonwade.com

C.Evans · #32 (**permalink**) May 9th, 2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

You miss my point I think, if he had a gun then nothing but a gun or spontanious group action on the part of bystanders would have stopped him. However, without a gun a single person of greater stature would be enough. You also fail to get past the point that for the most part these kids aren't willing to engage in fisticuffs, without a firearm they aren't willing to do anything.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

It isn't meant to be an exscuse, you said 'if one is a law-abiding citizen with no hidden or unlawful past, why is it so bad for them to be able to possess a firearm.' I just pointed out that Cho had previously been a law abiding citizen, thus rather nicely demonstrating why it might be a bad thing 'for them to be able to possess a firearm.' If someone's past is hidden you aren't going to know about it to decide whether to let them have a firearm or not.

If people can successfully rob bank vaults and diamond safes then I reckon they could get into your place.

And that is kind of the point of the thread, since there is rarely someone armed with a gun walking around the highschool where these kids rampage, the only real way to deal with them is tighter control over who can get hold of a firearm. What that should be I cannot say but clearly something needs to be done (and I'm talking well thought out, intelligent legislation, not the knee-jerk rubbish we get).

I'm pretty sold on the UGL we get for the SA 80, grenade launchers are the way (to clear) forward

Hi Stefan, sorry but, your now only grasping at straws on this. ;-))

Also, hmmmm, I would not mind owning one of those Grenade Launchers :-D

Cheers and Rootbeers--C.

Stefan · #33 (**permalink**) May 10th, 2007, 12:13 PM

Carl, you do realise that isn't actually a response right? The fact is that there are still numerous people who have no criminal record but will be dangerous with a firearm (Cho for example), from that simple fact alone it seems clear that more intelligen legilation is needed.

For the UGL, take a look at my profile pic, that was a pretty awesome couple of weeks.

T. A. Gardner · #34 (**permalink**) May 10th, 2007, 03:33 PM

The "big picture" problem is that trying to legislate personal behavior through limiting access to what are essentially tools (or material things in general) is much like herding cats. You are never going to be really successful doing it.
Take away guns and you get a knife culture instead. Take away knives and some other alternative will pop up. You see exactly this happening in the UK right now.
If, there was some correlation between implements / material possessions and personal actions you might be able to control one with the other. But, everything I've seen says that this relationship does not exist.
For example, the US does have the highest rate of gun assisted suicide and gun murder rates but, ranks a mere 24th behind many countries that have absurdly strict gun laws on the overall murder rate. Japan for example has a suicide rate approaching double that of the US; it is just that there guns are not used hanging or sword / knife wound being the prefered methods.
So, the bottom line is those arguing that human behavior can be controlled by limiting access to material things, technology, or other similar 'stuff' are just dead wrong. You control human behavior best by setting up sociatial systems that make humans interact more with each other....ie you use leadership not management to control people.

chocapic · #35 (**permalink**) May 10th, 2007, 08:49 PM

The subject is guns, not tools, technologies or material things.

You can't treat a weapon in the same way you treat something that can be used as a weapon.

That's the reason why all countries of the world, including USA, have different laws for, let's say, scewdrivers and handguns.

Stefan · #36 (**permalink**) May 10th, 2007, 08:54 PM

Or indeed why there are different rules for knives, guns and thermonuclear weapon.

C.Evans · #37 (**permalink**) May 10th, 2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan

Carl, you do realise that isn't actually a response right? The fact is that there are still numerous people who have no criminal record but will be dangerous with a firearm (Cho for example), from that simple fact alone it seems clear that more intelligen legilation is needed.

For the UGL, take a look at my profile pic, that was a pretty awesome couple of weeks.

Stefan, I do realize that but, in particular, please read the 3rd paragraph of T.A's post that is directly below yours and you will see what I have been trying to say; but in much more words. I guess I am long-winded at best ;-))