Gun Control is ridiculous

[Ranb]

Why are people "freaks" because they want to control guns?

I have used the term "gun control freaks" before on this forum. But I have never used it to imply that anyone who favors gun control (I favor it in moderation) is a freak. An example of a gun control freak in my opinion is one who uses lies about guns/gun owners to promote excessive controls on firearms. For example, those who say handguns have no sporting use, despite it being obvious to almost anyone who shoots handguns that they do have sporting uses, are good examples of a GC freak.

The Brady Campaign and VPC are two examples of those who lie to promote gun control.

This freakish behavior is not limited to those who demand gun control, it also includes so called gun nuts in some cases.

I would also say that anyone who says civilians should not be allowed to own firearms is a gun control freak.

Ranb

 

[Yjacket]

Hey there CFLarsen thank you providing me another source of information.

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

I did read the source and "may" means that these people can keep them if they wish. Not as you said - "While in service - and only then - do they keep their rifle in their homes." Big difference between "only" and "may." Oh yes, it also pertains to Officers, not Just Enlisted Personnel as you tried to make lurkers believe.

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

What issue are you trying to make of this? Looks to me like smoke screen from someone who got caught keying off a subject about which he/she knows little or nothing.

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.

Yeah I read that. I also recall that it was demands from EU that caused the changes, not the local population. Also we are not discussing firearms in general, we are discussing your statement that the Swiss may only keep military firearms at home while on active status. So again, you are trying to divert attention.

And it is not easy to get a constitutional change in Switzerland:

Completely unrelated to the discussion so should be considered blowing smoke again.

Where did I "goof" again?

I suggest that you begin reading for comprehension and quit trying to blow smoke. Seems to me that it has been you who claim that the same old information keeps being rehashed on firearm threads. Guess that is because there are those among us who are willing to correct errors.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Yeah I read that. I also recall that it was demands from EU that caused the changes, not the local population.

...snip...

Are you still talking about the Swiss?

 

[Lonewulf]

Have you ever been to a psychic, or an astrologer, or a faith healer?

A psychic's claims can be investigated at a distance by video; such as what Randi showed in his videos. Their claims are often made on television. So it's a false analogy, as you understand what a psychic is saying just by seeing it, and yet I see many broad claims about what guns (and gun users) can do with firearms that come under question. I question whether someone that is suitably angry will even be able to release the safety catch in his state (which no one seems to factor), and if he DOES have the mental faculties to release the catch, then I wonder why he can't just use another type of weapon if the gun were taken away? No one factors this, but don't let me use my reasoning ability!

Astrologers and faith healers are on the same coin, and further their claims ARE tested and found wanting. I don't see any of the claims here being tested, but I see a lot of statistics being thrown out and interpreted "interestingly", as well as debunked faulty statistics being used without any apology or explanation.

So pardon me if I find it a false analogy.

 

[fuelair]

very calm and calculated post, I imagine you think thats how you would be if you were in a firefight. The only thing you left off is blowing the smoke from the barrel before you reholster.

"my carry is Black tallons" Lol.... Do you carry a gun for protection or that special feeling?

For protection. Black Talons (unfortunately no longer made) are the most efficient - other than Glazers- at thoroughly stopping an assailant since the energy is expended entirely in the body mass. I am well aware of the psychological effects of stress in a gunfight/knifefight/fight including,but not limited to, narrowing of field of vision, tendency to fire/strike wastefully, stretching of time. The only special feeling the carry weapon gives me is the extra weight on the side I carry it on. I have known too many people who have been killed in robberies (the bulk of the people I knew who were killed by intended violence were robberies - by known, I mean personally known not read about) to be unprepared. My choice of weapons is related directly to physics - largest caliber I can properly handle and most powerful cartridge in it that I can properly handle and that will expend all or most of its' energy in the target mass, that can be functionally concealed - so, in most locations it is a .357, snub with Talons. Re: knives, Gerber Mark I for about 20 years, but I prefer gun for primitives.

And, why in skeptics' name would I be blowing smoke off the barrel? That's movie/t.v. crap.

 

[Yjacket]

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.

Incorrect.

Some of are only too well aware of the number of people who are killed by gunshot each year. But some of are also aware that there are three seperate and distinct catagories of such actions.

Murder. Well not one of the firearm control advocates has been able to show why law-abiding should not have access to firearms. It is not true that "most murders are committed by someone going off the deep end."

Suicide. There is little that can honestly be gained by firearm controls. Yes, it is tragic that people commit suicide in any way shape or manner. But studies have shown that firearm control can reduce the number of suicides with a firearm, not the total number of suicides. Also those who wish to make a claim that firearm control will reduce suicides are ignoring nations where there is strict firearm control yet there is a very significant suicide rate.

Accident. Here is the only place that firearm control could hope to have an impact and yet the accident per capata has been trending down since the beginning of record keeping. And it is not just per capata it is in fact total number of incidents in spite of more people possessing firearms and more firearms in the pool. Banning firearms will not eliminate all of the incidents of accidental fatal accident.

 

[CFLarsen]

I have used the term "gun control freaks" before on this forum. But I have never used it to imply that anyone who favors gun control (I favor it in moderation) is a freak. An example of a gun control freak in my opinion is one who uses lies about guns/gun owners to promote excessive controls on firearms. For example, those who say handguns have no sporting use, despite it being obvious to almost anyone who shoots handguns that they do have sporting uses, are good examples of a GC freak.

The Brady Campaign and VPC are two examples of those who lie to promote gun control.

This freakish behavior is not limited to those who demand gun control, it also includes so called gun nuts in some cases.

I would also say that anyone who says civilians should not be allowed to own firearms is a gun control freak.

Ranb

Nice.

So you have no problems with the statistics that show how many people are shot each year in the whole country?

Hey there CFLarsen thank you providing me another source of information.

You're welcome.

I did read the source and "may" means that these people can keep them if they wish. Not as you said - "While in service - and only then - do they keep their rifle in their homes." Big difference between "only" and "may." Oh yes, it also pertains to Officers, not Just Enlisted Personnel as you tried to make lurkers believe.

Read it again: We are talking about the soldiers.

What issue are you trying to make of this? Looks to me like smoke screen from someone who got caught keying off a subject about which he/she knows little or nothing.

Considering that you are demonstrably wrong not once, but several times, I think you should be careful with those opinions.

Yeah I read that. I also recall that it was demands from EU that caused the changes, not the local population.

Switzerland is not a member of the EU.

Also we are not discussing firearms in general, we are discussing your statement that the Swiss may only keep military firearms at home while on active status. So again, you are trying to divert attention.

No, we are discussing firearms in general. The Swiss were brought up as an example of how prolific gun "ownership" meant a low rate of gun homicides. I showed that the premise was false.

Completely unrelated to the discussion so should be considered blowing smoke again.

On the contrary, it is very related: It shows that this is not a decision by fickle politicians and lobbyists.

I suggest that you begin reading for comprehension and quit trying to blow smoke. Seems to me that it has been you who claim that the same old information keeps being rehashed on firearm threads. Guess that is because there are those among us who are willing to correct errors.

Let me sum up:

Is Switzerland member of the EU?

How many rounds of ammo are the Swiss soldiers issued with?

Are those who keep their weapon allowed to carry it around as they please?

Are those who keep their weapon allowed to fire it where they please?

A psychic's claims can be investigated at a distance by video; such as what Randi showed in his videos. Their claims are often made on television. So it's a false analogy, as you understand what a psychic is saying just by seeing it, and yet I see many broad claims about what guns (and gun users) can do with firearms that come under question. I question whether someone that is suitably angry will even be able to release the safety catch in his state (which no one seems to factor), and if he DOES have the mental faculties to release the catch, then I wonder why he can't just use another type of weapon if the gun were taken away? No one factors this, but don't let me use my reasoning ability!

Astrologers and faith healers are on the same coin, and further their claims ARE tested. I don't see any of the claims here being tested, but I see a lot of statistics being thrown out and interpreted "interestingly", as well as debunked faulty statistics being used without any apology or explanation.

So pardon me if I find it a false analogy.

Sorry, it is a very valid analogy. It doesn't matter if I have fired a gun or not - I am still capable of looking at the facts.

 

[baron]

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.

So, in the face of damning and extensive evidence, your response is not to try and account for it (as I asked, yet again) but to call on others to prove a nonsensical hypothetical situation.

And still... the massively elevated US firearms murder rate has not been addressed.

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?

Asking a question equates to addressing the evidence? Run that by me again.

I, and others, have provided figures. Now, you back up your own argument by providing figures. Instead of asking this and asking that, provide evidence that the war on drugs accounts for the elevated US firearms murder rate.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, it is a very valid analogy. It doesn't matter if I have fired a gun or not - I am still capable of looking at the facts.

Uh huh. Okay, I'll take your word on it.

 

[Lonewulf]

So, in the face of damning and extensive evidence, your response is not to try and account for it (as I asked, yet again) but to call on others to prove a nonsensical hypothetical situation.

And still... the massively elevated US firearms murder rate has not been addressed.

I addressed the question. It has been addressed before in other forms.

Please keep up with the conversation.

However, please tell me what I'm supposed to address, then? Show me the statistics, and who made them, why don't you? Address how it compares to non-gun violence, and also further demonstrate that the same amount of violence (not gun violence, VIOLENCE) would go down if guns were taken out of the picture, please. Thank you.

Also, why don't you address someone that none of the TGC advocates here seem to want to:

HOW DO YOU KEEP THE GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF GANGSTERS, RAPISTS, DRUG DEALERS, BURGLARS, THIEVES, AND PEOPLE THAT WOULD WANT TO USE THEM AND ARE WILLING TO GAIN THEM ILLEGALLY?

I asked this question several times. No one has answered it yet.

 

[baron]

I would also say that anyone who says civilians should not be allowed to own firearms is a gun control freak.

Interesting that you feel the need to call your opponents freaks, however you define the word. Perhaps that's all that's left once your argument crumbles.

 

[Ranb]

Nice.

So you have no problems with the statistics that show how many people are shot each year in the whole country?

If a statistic consists of numbers and facts but no spin, then I have no problem with it as a statistic.

Ranb

 

[Lonewulf]

Hasn't the rate of violence (gun, youth, and not) been going down in the U.S., anyways? According to federal surveys, last I checked, they have. I'll have to find the statistics...

 

[CFLarsen]

If a statistic consists of numbers and facts but no spin, then I have no problem with it as a statistic.

Ranb

How can you describe all those people shot to death as "no social harm"?

We are not just talking about the actual people being shot, but also how it affects their families, friends, colleagues. Not to speak of the fear that each murder spreads in society.

 

[baron]

I addressed the question. It has been addressed before in other forms.

Please keep up with the conversation.

However, please tell me what I'm supposed to address, then?

So you've addressed the question but you don't know what the question is?

However, please tell me what I'm supposed to address, then?

The massively elevated US firearms murder rate (If I have to type that again I'll get cramp).

Show me the statistics, and who made them, why don't you?

Follow the links already posted in this thread.

Address how it compares to non-gun violence, and also further demonstrate that the same amount of violence (not gun violence, VIOLENCE) would go down if guns were taken out of the picture, please.

No. I won't because there is no need to. Statistics have been presented to back up my argument. Now present some to back up yours. That's the way it works.

Also, why don't you address someone that none of the TGC advocates here seem to want to:

HOW DO YOU KEEP THE GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF GANGSTERS, RAPISTS, DRUG DEALERS, BURGLARS, THIEVES, AND PEOPLE THAT WOULD WANT TO USE THEM AND ARE WILLING TO GAIN THEM ILLEGALLY?

I asked this question several times. No one has answered it yet.

I'd prevent the sale of murderous weaponry at practically every corner shop and go from there.

Perhaps when you've addressed the question I've been posing for 8 pages I'll give a fuller answer.

 

[Lonewulf]

How can you describe all those people shot to death as "no social harm"?

*Bangs head against desk*. Sometimes I think that you guys are terminally stubborn. Have you totally missed the last, like, 15 posts?

Do you think that people being stabbed to death is "no social harm"? Then ban all knives!

Do you think that people being hit by cars is "no social harm"? Then ban automobiles!

 

[Ranb]

Interesting that you feel the need to call your opponents freaks, however you define the word. Perhaps that's all that's left once your argument crumbles.

I do not need to call them freaks, I choose to. Which one of my arguments on this forum are you talking about?

Ranb

 

[baron]

I do not need to call them freaks, I choose to. Which one of my arguments on this forum are you talking about?

Ranb

Your argument. Your main argument. The thing you are arguing about.

And you're right, you don't need to call people freaks simply because their view differs from yours. It's kind of childish, don't you think?

 

[Ranb]

How can you describe all those people shot to death as "no social harm"?

Where did I say this?

Ranb

 

[Lonewulf]

I'd prevent the sale of murderous weaponry at practically every corner shop and go from there.

How does that work?

The guns are ALREADY IN CIRCULATION. They're in the homes of every single citizen here. What's step #2?

You just kept law-abiding citizens with no criminal record from getting guns. Way to go, genius! That REALLY shows those criminals!

Perhaps when you've addressed the question I've been posing for 8 pages I'll give a fuller answer.

Alright, I will in a bit. But your implemented procedure of action is ridiculous as it stands, even if there was an issue with firearms escalation. Because it simply. Will not. Work.

EDIT: Where are the statistics? What page and post number?