The ones that intend to use their weapons for harm, yes. Notably gangsters, drug dealers, rapists, etc.
You are talking about hardcore criminals. What about those who get angry, grab a gun and kill?
Some people in this thread are saying that handguns are not useful for hunting, have no sporting uses, and are primarily intended for killing people. I have disputed this. I have also claimed that I do not value property over human life and that crack heads are losers. Did I miss anything?
Which one of these arguments has fallen apart?
I could make the same argument for hand grenades.
Hand grenades are useful for hunting.
Hand grenades have sporting uses.
Hand grenades are not primarily intended for killing people.
What,
I can't dispute?
Lets see, first I said, "There is no social harm in my owning guns." Then you said "How can you describe all those people shot to death as "no social harm"?"
I own guns, and since I have never shot or threatened anyone or let anyone use my firearms in an irresponsible manner, my gun collection is not causing any social harm. I was not speaking of American gun culture in general. I certainly was not talking about victims of violence. You are smart enough to know the difference but you want to equate me with those who kill.
If I separate all of humanity into two groups; me and others, then I can say that the "others" group is doing the killing, not me. What problems have I caused that you are aware of?
Ranb
That leads right back to the question: Why should we trust you with a gun? Because you haven't threatened or shot anyone - yet?
Why would that result in you being less prone to going off on a rampage? Does gun ownership come with anger management classes and a glass of Thorazine?
No, that's shifting the burden of proof. YOU are the one making the claim, YOU are the one that must back it up. It has been pointed out that you have committed a correlation/causation fallacy. You can't just say X>Y and then shut up. You must show that X>Y because of the presence of guns (and explain why crime has been going down lately despite additional guns and more concealed carry laws etc.) and not because of other factors such as the War on Drugs that have been pointed out to you.
You have NOT supported your argument. You need to do so.
This is exactly the same argument that the Superstitious use: That
theirs is the default position.
It is not the default position that people have guns.
Not quite a fully factual statement. We are talking of your statement - as you want to ignore the Swiss document that says - so is not referring to just officers or just enlisted men. It plainly shows that your statement of "only while in active service" is incorrect.
You can repeat this falsehood, but it doesn't make it true.
I did not say it was. What I did say is "I also recall that it was demands from EU that caused the changes, not the local population." How about reading for comprehension instead of trying to divert attention?
How about realizing that, since Switzerland is not a member of the EU, the EU has no say in what happens in Switzerland?
You made a mistake by thinking that Switzerland was a member of the EU. But you won't admit to it.
Actually you did not show such a thing. What has been shown is that there is a significant inventory of firearms in the homes of Swiss citizens which blows the concept that the mere presence of firearms is the cause of crime.
Absolutely not. There are severe restrictions on home gun storage, and the guns are not kept for home protection.
As I have previously noted - I did not say it was or was not. However, to the best of my knowledge it is not. Please let me know if the information I have is correct or incorrect.
"It is not". Thank you. You were wrong, then.
Suppose you tell us how many filled magazines are to be kept on hand. Also tell us how many cartridges he may obtain to practice shooting at the local range.
How many rounds of ammo are the Swiss soldiers issued with?
Another attempt to divert attention. We are not on the topic of carrying it around. We are on the topic of your statement that the Swiss could keep military issue firearms in the home only so long as their status was active. But how are these people supposed to get the firearm to the range when they decide to go do some practice shooting? I suspect that they take the firearm with them when they go shooting.
Are those who keep their weapon allowed to carry it around as they please?
I would suspect that like here in the US one must be careful about where one goes shooting. Here in the US it is against the law to set up some tin cans at Third and Cedar, or any other municipality intersection, and do some target practice.
No, it is not it is "like here in the US". They have to go to official firing ranges.
Your own source clearly says so.
Claus, as in CFLarsen, has said on many occasions that if he even so much as sees anyone on a plane with a gun, regardless of whether or not he's an Air Marshal, he'll jump and attack him and try to kill him.
Because we can't tell the difference between a hijacker and an Air Marshal, yes.
Odd how people always leave that part out. But, hey, why destroy a good story?
Actually, "carrying it around as they please" is a non-issue in general for the argument of gun control. As there are Concealed Carry licenses you have to get even here in Texas. In order to carry a concealed weapon, you need to get certified, which is a fairly extensive process and gives you more responsibilities as an individual.
Perhaps. But merely having such licenses, it is acknowledged that carrying a gun around does carry great risks. Risks that are eliminated in Switzerland.
Riiiiiight.
I AM for one form of weapon control: I want CFLarsen to have no access to weaponry whatsoever, and be put into a place where he can't hurt anyone. Like a padded cell.
Now,
that's very interesting. Because then, you are in favor of outright banning of gun access to those you think are dangerous with a gun.
Why do you get to decide, while others can't? What gives you that right?
Have you ever met any criminals? That might describe some of them, but not all.
Yes, I've met criminals. I have also met people who later became criminals. I couldn't tell that they would.
Have you met people who later became criminals? If so, could you tell that they would commit crimes?
A bit more background for you. The report by C/L was to refute the findings of K/G showing that defensive use of firearms could well be more than 1.5 million incidents per year. Well from the report,
Click here, by C/L we find that K/G report may be low by a factor of 1.5 to 2.0. In other words the personal use of a firearm in a defensive mode may exceed 3 million incidents per year.
Ah, yes, the old Kleck/Lott "2-3 million defensive gun uses" ruse.
Here's how that number was reached. In Kleck's survey, people were asked:
"Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
Source: Kleck
Now, Kleck relied on what people told him. He didn't check one single story. So, already, his data falls through.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that his numbers are correct.
In almost half the cases (46.8%), the defender was not threatened or attacked. How is that "defensive"? Isn't that "offensive"? Hmmm....
Anyway, here's a little something for you to ponder.
In 8.3%, the defender wounded or killed the offender. That gives 190,900 cases of someone being wounded or killed.
Those cases do not show up in any statistics. Nowhere.
Can you - or anyone else - explain why?
So for you folks that want to continue to claim that civilian, law-abiding ownership of firearms is the cause of crime I suggest that you look again.
Who are you talking about? Name them, with quotes, please.
