Gun Control is ridiculous

Darat said:
You aren't for gun control at all?
Click to expand...

I'm for control restrictions put on certain firearms (such as assault rifles and military-grade weapons) personally. I'm also for a background check being required to purchase a firearm, with no firearms given to someone with a criminal record (possibly with exception to extreme cases where an exception is warranted, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. It's hard to be absolutist in this world!)

However, most people in this thread that advocate "Gun Control", want guns taken out of the hands of everyone.

I still do not understand how they intend to do this in a way that protects the average citizen, however. It's woefully misguided. There are far too many firearms in the U.S., from hunting rifles to pistols (some of which ARE used for hunting, yes; I know someone that uses Magnum .44s for hunting boar), to shotguns to other firearms. You cannot ban them and then they magically disappear.

And if you DO want to take them out of the hands of everyone (which is an impossible task!), many will refuse to give them up. So, by that token, you WILL have made criminals that did not previously exist. If you do not take them out of the hands of everyone, then they WILL end up in the hands of criminals still.

And by criminals I mean drug dealers, rapists, burglars, organized crime (yes, organized crime DOES exist in the U.S.! Surprise and shock!), serial killers, mass murderers, terrorists, gangsters, etc. etc. etc.

There seems to be this perception that people with guns suddenly change from peaceful people to raving lunatics. As if there's some sort of "Crazy Germ" on the butt of every rifle, on the handle of every pistol. They seem to think that no one can be trusted with a firearm. I do not hold to that perception, as almost everyone I know that has a firearm has a very healthy respect for what a firearm is and what it can do. They have been raised from childhood to know gun safety and to know how to handle the gun.

Oh, but wait! Obviously, when people get into angry arguments, they suddenly start randomly shooting each other, right? Yet, if we take out the gun, then they don't get angry any more, and don't do any harm towards each other! It's that darn "crazy germ"!

But the fact is that, quite frankly, someone would have to be willing to find a gun, pick it up, probably disengage the safety, and then aim -- at this moment they have to be READY to pull that trigger, and most people falter here (far less than those with knives do!), and then pull that trigger.

I know of someone that fell into a similar rage. You know what he tried to use? A bow. A bow that wasn't STRUNG. Yet he marched down to the garage, picked up the bow, strung it, notched it with an arrow, walked back into the house, and then was ready to fire it into his mother.

He didn't have a gun. He wasn't prepared to use a gun. But what if you take the bow out of the equation? Would he suddenly go, "Why, I'm no longer angry!" Or would he pick up something that's still deadly, such as a club, or a knife, or anything else?

The fact is that extreme GC advocates seem to think that everyone BUT policemen and military are 100% untrustworthy and will go crazy at a moment's notice. They also seem to think that Policemen and Military are 100% trustworthy, and never commit crimes, and would NEVER take advantage of a less armed populace.

I do not hold to that belief, and so if I had a gun, I'd be damned if I gave it up. I think that those that live in Los Angeles, California, or in New Orleans, or maybe even here in Corpus Christi (where, yes, I've heard that the cops are, indeed, crooked; though to me, so far, they're just rumors), would say that you cannot rely on the police for every little thing. As it is, I don't have a gun; but I do have a longbow and a shortbow, fencing gear (harmless), and some rattan weapons for the SCA. Nothing that I'd trust for self defense, naturally. But I'm not worried, thanks to the neighborhood I currently live in.

I notice someone that said, "There's nothing new to be said here", and then insulted those that are against GC. More ad hominems and personal attacks, as to be expected. Of COURSE there's nothing new -- there's nothing new with homeopathy either! Homeopathy is ridiculous, and there's nothing new that you need to bring up. Homeopathy doesn't work, and it not working makes no sense. It is common sense. You don't bring something "new" to the table because, quite frankly, there is nothing new that you need to bring up. Homeopathy is ridiculous. So is, too, extreme gun control. The U.S. is not Australia, it is not New Zealand, it is not Korea, it is not Singapore, it is not Thailand, it is not China, it is the U.S. The U.S. culture is a different one, the mindsets that are within it are different, and it is also extremely gun-saturated. There has been no proposals within this thread that make sense. Ban firearms? What does that do? Do you just intend to ban the sale? Once more: HOW DO YOU GET THE FIREARMS OUT OF THE COUNTRY?!

Until you answer that, you have just given power to the gangs, to the rapists, to the burglars, to the organized crime, and everyone else that will get their hands on an illegal firearm.
 
Last edited:
How did you goof. Why not recall what you have said?
CFLarsen said:
How on Earth is that different??
While in service - and only then - do they keep their rifle in their homes, along with 50 rounds of ammo. This ammo is solely meant for self defence until they reach the mobilisation points (in case they are called), and is stored in a sealed tin.
We are talking about enlisted men.
Click to expand...

To again quote from the link I provided earlier.
Due to the long tradition and the special organization of the Swiss armed forces as a militia army, special rules are applicable for army weapons. Between their regular annual service of two or three weeks per year, Swiss soldiers and officers keep their personal weapons at home. After they have left the army, they may keep those arms in order to continue practicing at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities. Special rules also govern hunting or sporting rifles.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added this time so perhaps you will notice it.

BTW, you are also in error concerning the amount of ammo allowed. The 50 cartridges you mentioned is for hunting rifles, not the military issue rifle.
 
Yjacket said:
How did you goof. Why not recall what you have said?


To again quote from the link I provided earlier.
Emphasis added this time so perhaps you will notice it.

BTW, you are also in error concerning the amount of ammo allowed. The 50 cartridges you mentioned is for hunting rifles, not the military issue rifle.
Click to expand...

Not correct:

Every soldier equipped with the Sig 550 assault rifle is issued 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed box, to be opened only upon alert. The ammunition is then loaded into the rifle magazine for use by the militiaman should any needs arise while he is en route to join his unit. Any other use than this, or even unsealing is strictly forbidden.
Source
Click to expand...

If you read your own source, you would discover that they may keep the weapons. Not that they do.

Additionally, they are only permitted to practice at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities.

Did you read the "Firearms Legislation in General" part? I'd say that was pretty darn restrictive. And that came about due to a referendum and a constitutional change, because the population wanted stricter gun control.

And it is not easy to get a constitutional change in Switzerland:
Constitutional amendments, whether introduced by initiative or in Parliament, must be accepted by a double majority of both the national popular vote and a majority of the cantonal popular votes.
Source
Click to expand...

Where did I "goof" again?
 
All this intricate reasoning and still the question of the massively elevated US firearms murder rate has not been addressed.
 
baron said:
All this intricate reasoning and still the question of the massively elevated US firearms murder rate has not been addressed.
Click to expand...

Of course not. That would require gun proponents to address the harsh facts.

Or perhaps the massive number of deaths are seen as collateral damage.
 
CFLarsen said:
Of course not. That would require gun proponents to address the harsh facts.
Click to expand...

Oooh, another personal attack! Wow, you guys are so great at respecting your opposition.

Or perhaps the massive number of deaths are seen as collateral damage.
Click to expand...

Actually, I addressed this some time back, but it seems to have been ignored. I can't imagine why!

I'd let your ad hominem attack stand on it's own, if I wanted. You ignore other's arguments and then claim that they don't comment. Go you!

But here we go:

Prove to me that these deaths would NOT have been caused by any other weapon at all. Yes, that's right, "All this reasoning" (YES! Because we don't want to REASON, do we?), and yet I haven't addressed this before... but I did! Oh, the irony.

Yes, the title of this thread is wrong. "Ridiculous" doesn't even begin to cover it. It's almost like a religion.

Remember: It's the ABSOLUTE GOOD! :D
 
Last edited:
baron said:
All this intricate reasoning and still the question of the massively elevated US firearms murder rate has not been addressed.
Click to expand...

It absolutely has! How many times have I brought up the War on Drugs? How many times have I asked how much lower the firearms murder rate would be were it not for the new Prohibition?

And, of course, it all goes ignored. And then someone turns around and says it hasn't been addressed.

Yep, typical gun control thread.
 
CFLarsen said:
I see you had nothing to say to this:
Click to expand...

Have you fired a gun before? Have you seen a gun outside of Hollywood action movies? Do you know how they work? Do you know how effective they are? Do you know guns safety? Do you know about the safety catch on almost all handguns (which takes some forethought to disable)? From what I've seen in this thread, these are questions that almost all of the answers to are "no". If the answers are "yes", then you have the opportunity to explain that you do, indeed, have firearms knowledge. If you do not, however, then it IS a factor in the argument.

Though I wouldn't call you "freaks" myself. But you are saying that two wrongs makes a right? That you can insult me as long as someone else insults you? How does that make sense?

Hey! Someone that argues your same point hit me. Therefore, I can punch you in the face. Makes sense, right?

Also, I LOVE the part about the "intricate reasoning" bit. Yes, it is truly wrong to try to reason.
 
Last edited:
Lonewolf hit it right on the money. It seems to me that every Gun Control person I have met has either never fired a gun before or has barely any knowledge about them.
 
Darat said:
Lonewolf is a "gun control freak".
Click to expand...

1) It's Lonewulf. With a u. Minor point, I get it all the time. It's like Beowulf.

2) Define "freak" in this context? Are you saying that "freak" is being applied to those that are going with status quo (I.E., with regulations and background checks), or to the people that want to ban all firearms, period? Which, as I recall, is the mainstream argument here.

3) If you cannot answer 2, then I think that you may well be wrong, and I'd like to see your actual perspective on this issue.
 
Quad4_72 said:
Lonewolf hit it right on the money. It seems to me that every Gun Control person I have met has either never fired a gun before or has barely any knowledge about them.
Click to expand...

The irony is that I haven't actually handled a firearm except a couple at the shooting range (a .45 automatic and a 9mm revolver, don't know brand names). It was kinda fun, but loud.

I know most of what I know about guns from research and "intellectual osmosis" from an expert.
 
Darat said:
Sorry.
Click to expand...

No problem, it was a minor point.

It's Quad4_72's phrase - that was why I put it in quotes.
Click to expand...

yes, it is. And I know that. However, it's also a noun being used as a descriptive.

"Gun control freak" as opposed to "gun control advocate". I interpreted it as one that was for total gun control (I.E., banning all firearms).

You are for gun control.
Click to expand...

For a limited amount, yes, I find most regulations in place today to be adequate (especially here in Texas). But you missed my point. "Limited Gun Control" != "Total Gun Control". In the same token, "Gun Control advocate != Gun Control Freak".

Though I disagree with the word actually used, in it's context it does not mean, "Someone that is for ANY amount of gun control". See?
 
Lonewulf said:
Have you fired a gun before? Have you seen a gun outside of Hollywood action movies? Do you know how they work? Do you know how effective they are? Do you know guns safety? Do you know about the safety catch on almost all handguns (which takes some forethought to disable)? From what I've seen in this thread, these are questions that almost all of the answers to are "no". If the answers are "yes", then you have the opportunity to explain that you do, indeed, have firearms knowledge. If you do not, however, then it IS a factor in the argument.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to a psychic, or an astrologer, or a faith healer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom