127 replies to this topic

[Phil]

You know, I'd prefer to see some armed criminal come to my house when he's convinced he needs not make use of his gun and have him leave with my money than increasing his readiness to shoot me because he knows I might shoot him myself.

[Elvenlord]

Then don't have a gun. I have to admire that, I couldn't sit back and watch people take everything.
But just because you feel that way, doesn't mean everyone else does. Just because you disapprove of something, does that mean no one can have it?

And Puppeteer, I was using your post above mine as my source.

You legalise guns, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to get one. You don't, and half of all criminals or would-be criminals go without. That's the way I see it.

You yourself said half wouldn't have guns, which means half would. Don't say something to me about something when said the same thing right before me.
And you think it will be hard for an average Joe to get a gun if they're illegal? Tell me, how hard is it to get illegal drugs? Not hard at all. I could probably find some within a couple hours, and I have no idea where to start looking. Why would it be different with guns?
So it's alright to kill someone with a nail file, but not a gun? Where's the logic there?

[mike_]

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

[Alias]

Then don't have a gun. I have to admire that, I couldn't sit back and watch people take everything.

He is Swiss. He is required to have a rifle and ammunition in his house. However, every single bullet must be accounted for and a whole lot of other rules. I'm sure he can explain it more.

[Phil]

Not yet, my conscription is on the 22nd (this month)

Is true though that most Swiss families have their assault rifle at home. However, most of them stand somewhere in the basement, so armed intruders (if there are that many) wouldn't need to fear to be shot, should they be spotted. Overall the readiness to make use of guns seems rather low here compared to what I hear and read from the US.
There is an ongoing debate to remove the guns and ammunition from home though because the guns are sometimes used for suicides (which I personally have no problem with) or to threaten girlfriends/wives (which I do have a problem with).

The one and only valid argument to keep weapons at home, in my opinion, is for the people to be armed in case of some kind of state/military oppression, should the political climate reach a state of escalation. This was also the reason why this law was ever made in Switzerland in the early days of our democracy.

The use for "self defense" against criminals, however, only leads to a downwards spiral of more and more gun violence and a lower inhibition threshold.

But just because you feel that way, doesn't mean everyone else does. Just because you disapprove of something, does that mean no one can have it?

I would indeed have that point of view if this was only a personal decision. However, the problem I explained is a problem of society as a whole and what you mentioned is thus not applicable only to individuals. Why would the readiness to make use of a gun be lower if only half of the population was indeed unarmed?

[Vortigern]

they didn't need to kill one of them.

Yes they did. It prevents any form of retribution from the invaders afterwards.

So does knocking them out and getting them sent to prison. Besides, the vast majority of people, criminals or not, are much more likely to bear a grudge if you shoot them and don't kill them than if you clobber them with a big stick. Prevention of individual justice and retribution is what the law is for.

There is an ongoing debate to remove the guns and ammunition from home though because the guns are sometimes used for suicides (which I personally have no problem with)

I don't know how anyone could have a problem with that. If someone wants to kill themselves, I say you should give them as much assistance in the matter as possible. Don't think of it as a loss of life, but more as proof of evolution and a form of eugenics.

Eugenics is the most highly immoral practice of which man has yet conceived. Suicide should not be illegal or not accepted, but neither should suicides be given state help in the matter. Besides, eugenics is supposed to help the overall health and strength of the majority. Would you illegalise suicide for healthy people but condone it for those with disabilities?

The one and only valid argument to keep weapons at home, in my opinion, is for the people to be armed in case of some kind of state/military oppression, should the political climate reach a state of escalation. This was also the reason why this law was ever made in Switzerland in the early days of our democracy.

As fantastic as that law is, and I do genuinely love it, that's not the only good reason for a man to own a gun. Unless you have a problem with those who enjoy hunting. Nothing wrong with going and and shooting an animal, only to have it sit on your plate at the end of the night.

That would be a good law were it still necessary. But it isn't. Who's going to invade Switzerland? The guns will never see use in active military service, but they will be used to engender fear by some, and suicide by others, as has been said. At this point I would like to remark that there are many other ways to commit suicide, and guns are far from the least painful method. There are also many ways to intimidate someone, but having someone else wave a gun in your direction is utterly terrifying. For all those of you who have never experienced it, which I hope is as many as possible, you can take my word for it.

And what's hunting got to do with anything? I support hunting for food, not for sport, but I think there are better ways to go about it than with guns. Most of the fun in hunting, for those sportsmen among you, is the chase. Anyone will tell you that. And if you're hunting for food, go trapping. It's far more effective, will gain you more food than wandering around pointing a gun at little furry animals and will probably not get you done for poaching either.

By the way, that nail file thing: utterly stupid. You could technically kill someone with a plastic spoon, or your thumb. My nail file got confiscated at airport security once, but I fail to see how I could have used it to hijack a plane. Frankly, if I'd managed it, I think I would have deserved the plane. If you were to illegalise everything that could be used to kill someone we would have to lie exactly still every hour of every day until we were all dead anyway.

[Vortigern]

So does knocking them out and getting them sent to prison. Besides, the vast majority of people, criminals or not, are much more likely to bear a grudge if you shoot them and don't kill them than if you clobber them with a big stick. Prevention of individual justice and retribution is what the law is for.

That's why you make sure they're dead. Don't stop attacking 'till they stop twitching. Yes, the law is there for the prevention of individual justice, as it is there for the prevention of any justice these days. Judges and entire juries are bought and corrupted well too easily these days. In countries such as England, the system has been corrupted to the point where there is justice for none. If you don't lay out tea and buiscuts for your burglars the night before, you could be charged and sued into the ground. The only safe methoud is to beat the invaders to death and bury the corpses in the black of night, hoping nobody else knows someone tried to rob you.

In countries such as England, where I live, and I'm guessing you don't, justice is done 99% of the time, it's just that nobody cares and it never gets talked about. If a jury is proven to have been bought, it gets splashed all over the front of the papers, but if it does its job properly it's just another day in the system.

I admit the example of Tony Martin, a farmer who was convicted for murder of a burglar who broke into his house, is a poor example to set, but I believe the law was right to punish him in some form, if not in the form they did. He served over thee years in prison before his 12-year sentence, I think, was overturned.

Anyway, how would you possibly know how easy it is to corrupt a judiciary? Are you in the practice of doing so? Do you live outside the law? Have you bought your way to freedom before? Stop talking bullshit about something you know absolutely nothing about. And before you tell me to do the same, I have spent a large part of the past three years studying the ways of the judiciary and I spent six months as an intern in the office of a Crown Court judge, so shove it.

Immoral or not, it works just fine. You have to be cruel to be kind some days. Removing those who cannot handle living does help the overall strength of the majority. I'll agree with you on one point though. Suicide should no longer be illegal. It's a pointless law. How the fuck are you meant to punish someone who manages to commit this crime? Death sentence? I suppose if necromancy was possible, you could subject them to a life sentence.

Suicide isn't illegal. We did away with that in the 1950s, because we realised it was a pointless law. And no, eugenics does not work 'just fine'. All these various diseases and malformities that you lump together as bad for mankind are genetic mutations. They can be passed on, some of them, but they will not be eradicated by selective breeding. Mutations can occur at any conception, and there is no way to ensure that they will not. Stem cell research would provide a cure when the disease was discovered, but before that, nothing.

Haven't you heard? A new global conflict is brewing. Those guns may become usefull sooner than you think.

Is it? Is it really? Do you honestly believe that a war will break out in the near future between global superpowers? Wars aren't fought with guns and missiles any more. If there is to be a real superpower war, it will be economic and political. And, assuming that to be so, it is already happening. But none of the world's more powerful nations will be invading each other any time soon, I can guarantee you that.

You're an execrable cunt. Next time you feel like posting, set up a proper account and don't just retreat into obscurity the moment you're finished.

[Spectre]

Oh, and GJ, when you're a bit older you'll probably come to appreciate that life is something that must be given by the individual, not taken by an external power. You're still at the age when war is fuckin awesum!!1! and having a gun is the coolest shit anyone can do. Just give yourself time. You know, that, or grow up into a life-hating cunt, lifetime member of the NRA and all-round arsehole.

I don't believe that war is "fucking awesume!!!!" and know the consequinces (Lol bas spelling) of a war, and no, I don't exactly think guns are the coolest thing ever or someone with one is cool, I believe it be a safety measure for high criminal rate areas, but don't think someone saying "WANNA SEE MAH GUN!?!?" and sticking it right in my face is much a pretty sight, adding to it, if the person is clumsy and has it loaded might make me want to leave all together.

Also SMG, just because you have a chair doesn't mean you can kill someone, if the criminal actually is smart he would watch you or tie you up, if the criminal is stupid, meh, you'd get him first.

[Alias]

Also SMG, just because you have a chair doesn't mean you can kill someone, if the criminal actually is smart he would watch you or tie you up, if the criminal is stupid, meh, you'd get him first.

Why the hell must this revolve around killing? He never said he'd kill with the chair. Home defence != killing.

[some_weirdGuy]

The point of the chair is so they dont die....

Also, i hear of stupidities with lawsuits by criminals and the crim wins, and i wonder what the hell the judges could be thinking... its completely stupid(lol, listen to 'i'll sue ya' by Weird Al, its funny as! and just some of the things he sings about sueing people over are hilarious )

Anyway, this talk on guns reminds me about something my parents were talking about a while back, in which they found out that technically, if you go to another room and get weapon to combat a criminal, its illegal (also, you aren't allowed to keep weapons in the room 'just in case', as thats also technically illegal)
they said that the person talking about it said to them all to 'keep big heavy ash trays in each room, so then its nice and legal', i laughed when they told me... its a good idea, have a big heavy ash tray and you could knock out a burglar with it. you also avoid any lawsuits as you are perfectly alright to keep ashtrays in the room, if you happen to grap it to use as self defense, then they have no case against you.

PS. Its SWG (sorry, couldn't help myself)

[Vortigern]

Also SWG, just because you have a chair doesn't mean you can kill someone, if the criminal actually is smart he would watch you or tie you up, if the criminal is stupid, meh, you'd get him first.

Why the hell must this revolve around killing? He never said he'd kill with the chair. Home defence != killing.

Thank you Alias. Killing an intruder is really not the only way to stop them. Maybe you should keep a syringe full of horse tranquilliser in every room so you can knock them out as soon as they come in. Just shove it in their neck and push the syringe down and you have one unconscious burglar. Or a chair to the back of the head, or a cricket bat, or a hefty ashtray, or anything. The point is you don't need a gun.

[m@tt]

Also SMG, just because you have a chair doesn't mean you can kill someone, if the criminal actually is smart he would watch you or tie you up, if the criminal is stupid, meh, you'd get him first.

If you have time to get a gun, you have time to get a chair, knife, cricket or baseball bat etc.

I'm of the same opinion as pretty much all non-Americans here - more guns = more crime, more violence, more deaths.

[Mathijs]

Criminals will still be able to get a gun, even if the law forbids it, obviously. It will just be a helluva lot harder then just walking into some random gunstore and buy yourself some pistol. People shouldn't be entrusted with guns because they aren't rational. If someone gets into a serious fight and has a gun available, things get a lot more dangerous.

Edited by Matias, 09 September 2008 - 06:09 PM.

[Spectre]

Also SMG, just because you have a chair doesn't mean you can kill someone, if the criminal actually is smart he would watch you or tie you up, if the criminal is stupid, meh, you'd get him first.

If you have time to get a gun, you have time to get a chair, knife, cricket or baseball bat etc.

I'm of the same opinion as pretty much all non-Americans here - more guns = more crime, more violence, more deaths.

I'm not saying I approve that the use of weapons is what's needed, though picute yourself in the situation they were in, would you think twice about mercy? Ecpecially if he has a loaded shotgun pointed on your wife's nose, I bet any of you in here would have no mercy if the cost of standing by meant someones life you hold dear or precious items being tooken from you with you just watching it all.

Edited by General Jenkins, 09 September 2008 - 11:29 PM.

[Alias]

If he was in a country with real rules he wouldn't have a shotgun.

/thread

[Vortigern]

I would agree with Alias and the [/thread], but I have one more point that just occurred to me.

Does anyone here watch The West Wing? There was one episode where the President (Martin Sheen) fell victim to an assassination attempt. He survived, but the point was that until the gunmen had actually opened fire on the President they hadn't committed a crime, and had they been stopped before they were able to get a shot away, they could not have been convicted.

Just thought I'd tag that on the end.

Real [/thread].

[Puppeteer]

I think this is an interesting debate, no need to stop it.

And you think it will be hard for an average Joe to get a gun if they're illegal? Tell me, how hard is it to get illegal drugs? Not hard at all. I could probably find some within a couple hours, and I have no idea where to start looking. Why would it be different with guns?
So it's alright to kill someone with a nail file, but not a gun? Where's the logic there?

I don't exactly see this as valid. Guns do not equal drugs. Go to some alleyway in a crappy city and you'll find drugs. Guns aren't the same thing.
And the point about the nail file was you can defend yourself without a gun... with a gun, you'd be more liable to want to kill them.

Edited by Puppeteer, 10 September 2008 - 07:25 PM.

[m@tt]

In England this year, there has been a big problem with teenagers and stabbings, mostly in London. Many teenagers, both in gangs and completely innocent victims, have been killed.

What is the solution?

Is it:

a) give everyone a knife so that they can all defend themselves?
b) improve legislation, policing and education etc to reduce the number of knives on the street?

Edited by m@tt, 10 September 2008 - 08:01 PM.