PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     To all people outside the USA

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
turrican

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I respect your rights not to own a weapon. Why are you so concerned if I own one? I have been shooting safely for 30 years and I enjoy it very much. What is it to you? Why not just get on with what you like and let us do what we like? I dont threaten anybody.
Please dont turn this into a political thread. I am not a political person, just a guy that works hard every day to support his family. I am just talking one person to another. If you want to be unarmed thats fine. If I want to be armed and I cause no harm, what is the problem.


-------
"Among the misdeeds of the British in India, history shall record the depriving an entire nation of arms as the blackest." Ghandi
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 8:19 PM on September 26, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

One thing I’ve noticed is that people who stand to lose a gun in these situations personalize the “Antis” view and don’t realize that the “Antis” don’t only think it will keep themselves safe but the old gun owners also.  

It’s not the fact that you threaten anybody or not, you can threaten somebody with various different weapons other than a gun and they don’t need to be banned as bad as guns.  It’s the fact that a gun is a “tool”  that gives somebody(judgment and need aside) the ability to commit murder with nothing but the pull of a trigger from 20-30 feet away.  If the 20-30 feet is way off I apologize.  It just makes it easier to make murder less personal and therefore a more viable option in the eyes of some.

Like one intelligent pro gun owner told me “there's a real risk in any country of being threatened for property or life. As long as that chance is not 0 percent, there's justification to having a defensive weapon. -quatin”  I also believe that as long as there is a risk of somebody using a gun to murder that is justification not to allow the general public to have them.

DSFX


(Edited by DSFX 12/16/2006 at 01:21 AM).

(Edited by DSFX 12/16/2006 at 01:21 AM).
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 01:19 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not sure if it's as simple as that. As you have said, there are many capable tools that can be used to murder. If we adopt that concept, how far do we go? Propane tanks make good shrapnel bombs, bottled alcohol make molokav cocktails, cars make good bombs/rams and many kitchen chemicals make good poison to be "slipped" into consumable products. All of these can be used as weapons in a very impersonal way.

Many people say it's "easier" with a gun, but when you remove guns then it becomes "easier" with a knife, then "easier" with a pipe bomb and etc. At what point do you set a standard and a hard limit?

*Edit
And how do you justify that standard limit to others?

(Edited by quatin 12/16/2006 at 01:50 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 01:40 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Yes there are many other more than capable tools that can be used for murder, however the vast majority of them require thought, planning and/or passion(and in some cases opportunity).  

Your right many people do say it’s easier with a gun, it requires less though and feeling to point and pull your finger back than to forcefully tackle somebody and stab them repeatedly or to plan and set up some sort of make shift bomb, even to poison somebody it takes a certain mix of intelligence, continues rage and opportunity.  

From my statement above you can probably assume where I set the limits.  

DSFX    

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 01:59 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is that the goal though? To make a criminal work harder for the kill?

Is that added hindrance enough to offset the consequence to this action; that there will be citizens who will be victimized and not able to prevent it because they were unarmed?

It may be for you, but I think you will find it difficult to convince many others.

Just like how gun owners will admit that allowing gun flow into the country will increase the chances of a criminal using it on an innocent. We believe that the pros of arming a populace outweighs the cons of also arming a criminal, mainly because the problem is not guns, but the criminal. There are methods to alternatively battle the criminal element.

*Edit
Not to nag, but I think you side winded one of the implications I made. Pulling a trigger is easier than stabbing someone. However, once you remove the gun, stabbing someone is easier than trying to poison them. If you look at Britain this is where violence control logic has led. First it was to get the guns off the street, but criminals turned to knives. Now there are laws in place to remove knives, because knives will become the leading weapon of murder. They failed to set a hard line limit. It can't be the "easiest weapon to use" needs to be banned as that cascades  downwards.

(Edited by quatin 12/16/2006 at 02:16 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:09 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well if history has proven anything it’s that where there is a will there is a way.  People will always want to murder and people will always be murdered.  It’s a fact of life, a grim one at that but none the less.  

Removing a gun from somebody that wants to commit murder would cause that person to think about their actions and it would eliminate the spur of the moment rage.  It would cause them to think about the actions and consequences necessary to take a life.  

You say that “because the problem is not guns, but the criminal” but what is your definition of a criminal?  The evil drug dealer on the corner that robs people?  Or the person with the tool, motivation and opportunity to commit murder.  

I was going to let it slide but in one of your earlier posts you said “I'm not sure if it's as simple as that. As you have said, there are many capable tools that can be used to murder. If we adopt that concept, how far do we go? Propane tanks make good shrapnel bombs, bottled alcohol make molokav cocktails, cars make good bombs/rams and many kitchen chemicals make good poison to be "slipped" into consumable products. All of these can be used as weapons in a very impersonal way.”  Adopting the same attitude you could also say why stop at guns?  Why not allow more destructive weapons to be placed into the hands of the citizens, their responsible… right? Look at all the stats people post on this forum.

DSFX

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 02:29 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would have to disagree, on the spur of the moment murder, the aggressor wants to kill, not specifically kill with a gun. They would use whatever weapon was available. Their success rate however can different with or without a gun. However, how far down do we want to baby adults by removing possession of items because we judge them unable to handle their own anger?

I use the term criminal in terms of what is legally binding to the term. One who breaks the law and one who "has shown reasonable intention to break the law". (I think I stated that correctly)

Destructive devices are actually allowed in some parts of the US. These include small artillery pieces and grenades. If a person can justify the possession of such a device they are allowed to have one. The only boundary at this point being how to justify to the state department as to why it is necessary.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 03:01 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with you when you say that a murder will want to kill with anything and not just a gun, which is 100% true;  However he may not have the ability, may not want to risk getting hurt himself or there may not be a viable weapon available at the time.

Also, and I think this is the difference between the “antis” and the “pros”, the populous of America cannot be looked at on an individual basis because it is impractical due to the size of the country.  So just like in grade three one bad apple will ruin it for the whole class until the class can control the bad apple.  One death that was preventable is one too many.  

And I can’t believe I’m asking this because I don’t really think I want to know but what justification would anybody have for small artillery and grenades?  

DSFX

PS sorry for the long wait for a response, tis the season!


(Edited by DSFX 12/18/2006 at 8:17 PM).
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 8:16 PM on December 18, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I suppose the same "justification" they'd have for owning firearms.  To kill.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:27 PM on December 18, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"One death that was preventable is one too many."

There are many commonly available items that cause deaths and even register more fatalities/injuries per year than guns ex. automobiles, tobacco. There must be more to your criteria other than "someone could use it to kill themselves/others".

According to your bad apple analogy. If we assume there will always be bad apples and even one incidence is too much. Would we not be in a perpetual cycle of limitations? Guns are not the only thing available to be abused. To be prepared for that one incidence, should we not remove ALL things that are capable of being a tool of injury? I think you meant things that are purposeful, but I'll let you clarify.

I'm not exactly sure what justification qualifies for a DD license and I haven't tried to acquire one, but I know it exists. I would speculate that it's mostly people who have money and just want something unique to play with, but I don't know.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:19 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"One death that was preventable is one too many."
When I said that I wasn’t case specific and that is because one death that was preventable is one to many be it car, gun, tobacco, plane.  Well my criterion is not that someone could use it to kill themselves/others.  My criterion is people do use it to kill themselves/others and it’s really easy.
As for my bad apple analogy your semi correct, however one is not to assume that there will always be bad apples when one has not done everything in their power to weed them out.  And what I say does not just apply to guns again it applies to all that can be abused.  After all if it’s being abused right now ruining life’s then why should people have access to it?  

DSFX

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 6:29 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't see how "ease of use" should come into play at all. The result is the same injury or death whether they had to work harder for it or not. Does it matter all that much how easy it was to injure/kill? If anything, shouldn't number of incidence have priority over ease of use? If you justify that abuse should lead to ban what is the rational limit of abusive objects? There have been documented cases of injury/death using almost any tool imaginable.

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:49 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The problem is the ease of use; unfortunately that is also the appeal.  The ease of use makes aiming and shooting a gun basically a no brainer.  This makes it easy to just do and not think about what you’re doing in the heat of the moment.  I’m not going to draw the lines and say what is abuse and what is not abuse because that is not what my purpose here is.  But if you look at the statistics of gun related deaths and gun violence  (google it) and compare Americas to Canada’s, to Brittan’s to any other country with the exception of countries in war then you’ll see that Americas use of guns against it’s own populous is rather high.  And yes I’m aware of the staggeringly high suicide rate but that is for another topic.  

DSFX

(Edited by DSFX 12/19/2006 at 8:36 PM).
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 8:12 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It may be appealing, but it's not the problem. A gun is a tool, a tool does not beckon you to kill, because it appears easy.  Again, having a gun present will exacerbate some situations, but that does not justify disarming the rest of the populace, because a few gun owners can't control their rage.

The problematic parts of society is not just "gun related crime". It's crime in it's entirety. Of course, restricting firearms (like Britain is doing now) is going to reduce FIREARM related crime in the long term. But violent crime rates in Britain has gone up ever since the gun (and knife) restriction measures have been placed. The same thing happened with Australia as gun restrictions rose, violent crime rose. Canada actually has very similar gun laws to some states in the US, but is slightly more restrictive, but even Canada ranks higher in violent crime rates than the US. (The real difference is that 4 in 5 people in the US own guns where as 1 in 5 people own guns in Canada.) Accordingly, the crime density is not 4 times higher in the US.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902

Britain is generally regarded as an example of gun control gone bad.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page66.asp
Shows violent crime has risen since gun restrictions in 1999 in response to a shooting.

I know that everyone can manipulate numbers to make a goal, but in the case of Britain it's hard to make a case that gun control is making things any better.

(Edited by quatin 12/19/2006 at 11:46 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:41 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still have to disagree with you and say that using a gun is easier because of the disassociation with the crime, it’s a “hands off” killing.  Also arming the populous despite their temperament has helped lead the US to their record high crime rates in past years.  http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

I read the articles that you posted and almost immediately realized that the statistics are null and void since Brittan, Australia and America all use different methods to determine crimes, record crimes and distinguish crimes.  It’s not to say it wasn’t an interesting read though.  On that note I will also give you some more recent statistics that I’ve dug up that are also null and void because of that fact but you may find them interesting also.

Secondly with the new gun control in Australia and Brittan there must be an adjustment period this seems to be of about 4-6 years before the crime spike goes down from when the new laws were implemented and if you look at my voided charts you’ll see what I am talking about.  
http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2006/20060329.html - aus
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statistics28.htm - Britain
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aacrime2001.htm - US
http://canadaonline.about.com/library/weekly/aa072100a.htm - Can


(Edited by DSFX 12/20/2006 at 03:32 AM).

(Edited by DSFX 12/20/2006 at 04:02 AM).
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 03:30 AM on December 20, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agreed with you that using a gun is easier. I just don't see how an "easy, hands off, disassociated" method is relevant to the issue.

The US actually has a diminishing crime rate, on the chart you provided you can see that crime rates are dropping, especially violent crime.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

Is the report from the US Department of Justice and you can see crime rates are also decreasing with recent years being lowest.
So I'm unsure what angle you are saying that the US has record high crime rates in the past years.

If one cannot compare crime statistics from country to country because of how they are recorded, at least one can compare the rate at which crime is being committed. Australia is an arguable point because yes strict gun enforcement is recent (2001) and violent crime spiked immediately after.

Britain however, has had strict gun control for much longer (1997). Britain has seen an ever steady climbing violent crime rate. The page you referred to uses the "BCS" reporting method, a method used to make it appear that crime rates are dropping. BCS report on the "experience" of the victim. If a victim does not report/is dead than that incidence is left out.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page109.asp
Compares the BCS report with ALL reports of crime. You will see that the number of reports is climbing sharply, but the BCS reports it declining. On the bottom of the violent crime BCS report it declares that "firearm crime, homicide and other violent crime do not constitue violent crime in this report."

Britain and Australia (at least for now) are the poster childs of gun control failures, with rising crime rates despite their goals of reducing crime rates based on their gun control measures alone.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:06 PM on December 20, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've got some good points i want to address but i'm at work and starving!  I'll do it later tonight.  
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 2:29 PM on December 21, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's fine, I don't expect this to be a quick and simple debate. I'll probably be idling during the upcoming holidays.

*I'll edit this later to a response to save space.


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:57 PM on December 21, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I still have to disagree with you and say that using a gun is easier because of the disassociation with the crime, it’s a “hands off” killing.  Also arming the populous despite their temperament has helped lead the US to their record high crime rates in past years.  http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm


Actualy if you look at the homicide rates they were the highest in the early to mid 90s and have fallen to the number of homocide deaths in the early 70s. One thing that you haven't associated with this is in the mid 70's is when gun control started in the US this is when the homicide rates started to clime to its high in the early to mid 90's.  At this time is when states across the US started to adopt right to carry laws. Today The US has I beleave 41 states that have right to carry. And with these statistics remember that the population of the US has in creased 50% since 1970 from 200 million to 300 million.. If you were to calculate it by per capata the rate would probably be equivilant to the early 60's or 50's.

  "One death that was preventable is one too many." One thing that the antis never mention is that only if that death was preventable through disamament. If it were through arms than it is ignored. Prof. John R Lott did a study on right to carry one statitic he found was if all the states in the US were to adopt right to carry it would save 12 to 15 hundred lives anualy. Just this fact alone you would think would sway the antis but it doesn't.

Somthing else that was discovered  recently is that 30% of the homicides in the US are commited by  illegal aliens. We could drop our homicide rates substantualy by adopting right to carry nationaly and closing our boarders and deporting the illegals.  

(Edited by TRIGGER 12/28/2006 at 7:34 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 1:49 PM on December 24, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quantin:

I’m back, what a holiday.... sigh.

Anyways my point was that a gun makes it easier to kill somebody and if it’s easy to do then it’s more likely to be done.  

Yes I do see that the crime rates are diminishing on the charts but are still rather high, the threat of a gun didn’t seem to be such a great deterrent.  The high crime rates I was referring to were in the 80’s and early 90’s if I do recall.

True the BCS is not an accurate way of measuring true crime rates but come on now Tony Blair supports it so it’s got to be good, haha I’m just kidding.  But on the site it does state that “Violent crimes can involve actual violence, the threat of violence or harassment. One half of all violent crime does not result in any injury to the victim. This chapter describes the main types of violent crime, the numbers reported by the BCS and those recorded by the police, and the relative risks of becoming a victim.” There seems to be a discrepancy there.  

I don’t think that gun control laws and rising crime rates really have much in common.  It’s late now but tomorrow I will do some searching to try to back up my suspicion.  

Happy new years.

DSFX

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 01:23 AM on January 8, 2007 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TRIGGER:

I’ve discussed the pros and cons with Quantin over self defence through arms, his ending argument was the same as yours and mine was that if we had no guns there would be no gun crimes.    

Now I don’t know how they would calculate the number of murderous illegal aliens in the US so the accuracy of that percentage probably is not all that great.  I think that the current government in the US is using the illegal alien angle as more of a scapegoat for a number of different issues.  

DSFX

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 01:32 AM on January 8, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from DSFX at 01:32 AM on January 8, 2007 :
TRIGGER:

I’ve discussed the pros and cons with Quantin over self defence through arms, his ending argument was the same as yours and mine was that if we had no guns there would be no gun crimes.


Here is where I think the biggest diffrence in our debate is as for Quantin and myself where our goal is to reduce crime. For me that reduction is through any means as long as personal freedom and justice are up held. The argument can be made to repeal the rights of the accused, innocent until proven guilty, Maranda rights, right to an attorny, etc. If you look at any country with a nonexistant crime rate like China, Indonesa, North Korea, etc. These countrys have no rights you are guilty until you prove your innocents, No right to an attorny, no bail, etc. The penaltys are caning, amputations, rape gangs, torture, stoneing etc. And the penal systems are brutal.

Your argument is to prevent gun crimes. But if by your method (disarmament) crimes rose as they have in all most every place that it has been aplyed, wouldn't that be going in the wrong direction? Gun crimes would fall but the crime rate would increase, wouldn't you agree that this method is counter productive? It puts more people at risk and sacrifices human life just to prevent gun crime.

In the free nations that have no gun control laws the crime rates are very low. Switzerland and Israel where everyone is armed and in Switzerland where they are all armed with machine guns. Then would it not then make sense to adopt the path of these countrys where individual rights are retained and crime is low?        

Now I don’t know how they would calculate the number of murderous illegal aliens in the US so the accuracy of that percentage probably is not all that great.  I think that the current government in the US is using the illegal alien angle as more of a scapegoat for a number of different issues.  

DSFX



This is not a claim by the Federal government, It was reported by the Justice system in an LA news source a few mo's back. Since the main stream  media and the liberals want amnasty for the illegal aliens this is a story that they don't want getting out. Actualy to calculate those numbers it isn't hard since these are people who have been convicted of the crimes and are serving time. And by using the US IRS and imigration records it isn't hard to see who is a citizen and who isn't.




(Edited by TRIGGER 1/8/2007 at 09:53 AM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 09:44 AM on January 8, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Somthing else that was discovered  recently is that 30% of the homicides in the US are commited by  illegal aliens. We could drop our homicide rates substantualy by adopting right to carry nationaly and closing our boarders and deporting the illegals.


The federal government can't even estimate the number of illegals in this country so I don't see how they can get any form of "illegal's" crime statistics anywhere close to accurate (much less a private sector attempting) . I'm leery of these numbers and I'd be interested to see how they arrived at it, especially if it's not official numbers. Also where did you get the information on gang rapes and amputations for China & N.Korea? That sounds like media propoganda.


Switzerland and Israel where everyone is armed and in Switzerland where they are all armed with machine guns.


Having lived in Switzerland, I just don't think it's an even comparison with the US. Swiss gun laws are so radically different and MUCH STRICTER than US gun laws. If you want to make the argument that their crime rates are low because of their guns laws then we need to adopt their gun laws in it's entirety. That means no live ammunition in private residences without a permit, no more than 2 rifles per household and  mandatory military service.


I don’t think that gun control laws and rising crime rates really have much in common.  It’s late now but tomorrow I will do some searching to try to back up my suspicion.  


There are many other factors that affect crime rates other than firearms, but for the moment, I don't think there's any substantial proof that having firearms present in a society would increase violent crime rates.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:55 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from quatin at 2:55 PM on January 8, 2007



The federal government can't even estimate the number of illegals in this country so I don't see how they can get any form of "illegal's" crime statistics anywhere close to accurate (much less a private sector attempting) . I'm leery of these numbers and I'd be interested to see how they arrived at it, especially if it's not official numbers..


This is what I heard on a radio program that was read from an LA paper.  Actualy to calculate those numbers it isn't hard since these are people who have been convicted of the crimes and are serving time. And by using the US IRS and imigration records it isn't hard to see who is a citizen and who isn't.

Also where did you get the information on gang rapes and amputations for China & N.Korea? That sounds like media propoganda.

If you read the post where it mentions China it says etc. The rapes are Packistan and amputations are Middle East




Having lived in Switzerland, I just don't think it's an even comparison with the US. Swiss gun laws are so radically different and MUCH STRICTER than US gun laws. If you want to make the argument that their crime rates are low because of their guns laws then we need to adopt their gun laws in it's entirety. That means no live ammunition in private residences without a permit, no more than 2 rifles per household and  mandatory military service.


Not that I don't beleave you but you should look at this link. http://diodon349.com/Attack_on_America/swiss_guns.htm

From what it says the Swiss gun laws are very lax compaired to the US. In Switzerland you can't be turned down for a gun permit unless you have a criminal history, in the US you can be.  
Here are quotes;"The law forbids fully automatic arms and certain semiautomatics "derived" therefrom; but Swiss military assault rifles are excluded from this prohibition. (The exclusion makes the prohibition nearly meaningless.) Further, collectors may obtain special permits for the "banned" arms, such as submachine guns and machine guns.

In purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, a permit is required for handguns and some long guns, but not for single-shot rifles, multi-barrel rifles, Swiss bolt-action military rifles, target rifles, or hunting rifles. Permits must be granted provided the applicant is at least 18 years old and has no disqualifying criminal record. Authorities may not keep any registry of firearms owners. Private persons may freely buy and sell firearms without restriction, provided that they retain a written agreement, and that the seller believes the purchaser is not criminally disqualified."

I will not take this link as fact I am a member of a forum site that has Swiss citizens as members and will post to verify your claim.

Here's a link so you can varify.

http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=180620#post180620





(Edited by TRIGGER 1/8/2007 at 6:26 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 1/8/2007 at 6:27 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 1/8/2007 at 6:28 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 1/8/2007 at 6:29 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 6:25 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


This is what I heard on a radio program that was read from an LA paper.  Actualy to calculate those numbers it isn't hard since these are people who have been convicted of the crimes and are serving time. And by using the US IRS and imigration records it isn't hard to see who is a citizen and who isn't.


That just makes it hearsay..4th hand information from you to the radio jockey to the LA paper to whatever source the LA paper had. That's certainly not a reliable claim. I'm coming up empty on trying to find support for this. Also it's not that imaginably easy to get those numbers or else there would be official numbers out for it. Not all criminals are caught and there are specific factors to each incidence that makes it a non-viable source for random sampling. (IE Region, PD rules/competence) If anything can be said is how many illegals were CAUGHT & convicted of homicide, not 30% of homicides are committed by illegals.

Also where did you get the information
If you read the post where it mentions China it says etc. The rapes are Packistan and amputations are Middle East


I just read this:

If you look at any country with a nonexistant crime rate like China, Indonesa, North Korea, etc. These countrys have no rights you are guilty until you prove your innocents, No right to an attorny, no bail, etc. The penaltys are caning, amputations, rape gangs, torture, stoneing etc. And the penal systems are brutal.

That makes it seem china, indonesia and N.Korea are guilty of all those things.


Not that I don't beleave you but you should look at this link. http://diodon349.com/Attack_on_America/swiss_guns.htm

From what it says the Swiss gun laws are very lax compaired to the US. In Switzerland you can't be turned down for a gun permit unless you have a criminal history, in the US you can be.  
Here are quotes;"The law forbids fully automatic arms and certain semiautomatics "derived" therefrom; but Swiss military assault rifles are excluded from this prohibition. (The exclusion makes the prohibition nearly meaningless.) Further, collectors may obtain special permits for the "banned" arms, such as submachine guns and machine guns.

In purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, a permit is required for handguns and some long guns, but not for single-shot rifles, multi-barrel rifles, Swiss bolt-action military rifles, target rifles, or hunting rifles. Permits must be granted provided the applicant is at least 18 years old and has no disqualifying criminal record. Authorities may not keep any registry of firearms owners. Private persons may freely buy and sell firearms without restriction, provided that they retain a written agreement, and that the seller believes the purchaser is not criminally disqualified."

I will not take this link as fact I am a member of a forum site that has Swiss citizens as members and will post to verify your claim.

Here's a link so you can varify.

http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=180620#post180620



From just what you said swiss law is on equal grounds with US law. You can have a permit to own "class III & destructive devices" in the US. You  do NOT need a permit to purchase any other guns (at least in my state). A criminal background check is NOT necessary to buy guns just an outstanding warrant check although I understand some states require the 10 day background check. Private sales are conducted the same in the US. A gun registry is also banned in the US.

Now, things that are missing. Mandatory military service..take that along with firearms training. Registering ammunition sales from commercial business. You can buy ammo at ranges without permit, but the ammo must not leave the range. Requiring a permit to purchase firearms from a commercial business, which is limited to 3 firearms per permit. Private firearm transactions must be documented and the document kept for a minimum of 10 years by the seller. The battle rifle issued must not be used unless war breaks out and ammunition provided for (in a sealed can) cannot be opened unless for the same reason.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:41 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

North Korea has little crime? Well okay, if cannibalism isn't illegal than I guess you might be right.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 4:55 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from quatin at 4:41 PM on January 10, 2007

That just makes it hearsay..4th hand information from you to the radio jockey to the LA paper to whatever source the LA paper had. That's certainly not a reliable claim. I'm coming up empty on trying to find support for this. Also it's not that imaginably easy to get those numbers or else there would be official numbers out for it. Not all criminals are caught and there are specific factors to each incidence that makes it a non-viable source for random sampling. (IE Region, PD rules/competence) If anything can be said is how many illegals were CAUGHT & convicted of homicide, not 30% of homicides are committed by illegals.


Heres the artical sorry thought it was an LA paper I was wrong.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103





-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 9:45 PM on January 11, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok..so it's 2nd hand information now from worldnetdaiy to Steve King, who does not really cite where he came up with that figure. Steve King only mentions his statistics on his website. That sounds very dubious as apparently Steve King has a history with mis-representing illegal immigration figures for his campaign.

Here's a site that list some documentation refuting Steve King's claims.
http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200610310005

There may be some shred of truth in King's statistics, but it seems questionable. I certainly wouldn't propogate this statistic as truth without attaching Steve King's name to it as "Take it with a grain of salt".

(Edited by quatin 1/12/2007 at 6:27 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:48 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In order for second hand information to be of use, it must be backed up from unrelated sources.



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 5:14 PM on January 12, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just reported what I heard thats all. Sounds like all the misifromation spread by the anti gunners.


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 6:53 PM on January 15, 2007 | IP
lildemon

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i want to start off by saying im pro gun ownership,and have a carry license in my state, i have been on a number of forums during this wk following the vt horror, but i wanted to think u guyz n girlz if any on this site for being realistic about a debate instead of having the mindset of ur with me or against me, its nice that u have been able to maintain a debate that emotions tend to overtake in a civil manner and i thank all of ya, im the type of person that if u respect my opinion and my arguement i will do the same for u, but when u demand, a fight will be iminent, its a flaw but one i can live with. even though ur not likely to change each others view ur trying with respect, that goes alot further than thinking you know all and have the solutions to all. so anyway thanks.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:52 PM on April 18, 2007 | IP
nurseguy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We're not the capitol of guns.  
Just known for it.

(Lot's of other countries have lots of guns, we just keep the most records.  And we have more handguns becouse we're the only ones that take them seriously.)

Russia,  easily obtainable AK's have been the norm, illegal in the cities but noone bats a lash out of town.  Laws vary in location, most "security guards"  carry cutdown AK's under their coat.  Little legal distinction between full auto and semi.  No one thinks handguns are ever worthwhile.

Europe.  Suprisingly not gun free.  Lots of shotgun sports and rifle sports though all bolt action with few semi's.  Strict backgrougnd checks to purchase but fewer restrictions after.  Some countries allow citizens millitary style weapons as citizens are considered part of the millitia and duty bound to be armed to defend the counrty.  (sounds like a good idea to me!)

England.  Lots of shotgun and rifle sports.  Legal silencers on small rifles so you don't bother the neighbors.  Strict control on handguns in the cities.  Most crime guns are smuggled in.  I won't even get into if the gun control laws have worked or not...

Mexico, strict laws but poor enforcement.  Almost impossable to legally own even a ranch rifle, calibers are limited to small game only for most people, ammount of ammo is limited as is type.  Most people just buy from the millitary which has been know to sell it's used surplus cheap on the black market (many to the drug cartels in the US.)

South America.  Again handguns are seldom legal but no-one seems to take them seriously as cut down autos are the norm in security services.  Ample hunting on private areas otherwise easily available ex-millitary hardware.  Ranchers down there just buy from the millitary for a ranch rifle.  Must be nice to buy without checks and get a full auto!!!

Middle east... puleeese.  Iran, Iraq, Syrya to name a few have provisions in their constitutions allowing one full auto rifle per family.  Why bother with a handgun?

Africa... Makes the middle east look peacefull.  A foriegn hunter migh have to take a 2 shot or a bolt, but their guide has an AK...

China... who knows.  Millions of people farming/hunting gathering and living rough like we havn't seen since settling the continent.  Have to bet they're not throwing rocks at food though.

I think we get the reputation because we think that handguns are so cool while half the world has millitary hardware, and because so many people argue the point it seems like we're all gun toting though we're the only place where people are blackpowder hunting like it's 1700 something.


 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 02:33 AM on July 17, 2007 | IP
stuntman-aus

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I dont mund you having a gun for 30 years..it's just if you have a really bad day I don't want to be the person who drew the short straw because you finally wanted to blow someones head off.... We are civilised in this society.. that's what separates us from the 3rd world... The U.S is silently sliding in that direction


-------
stuntman australia
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 7:40 PM on February 15, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Think a reality check will raise the dead?


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:50 PM on February 16, 2008 | IP
Jarhead

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is amazing how the discussion always wanders off in a direction other than what was intended. I thought the topic was a message to those outside the U.S.

That being the case, I would ask “Why do those who do not live here and are not citizens of the U.S. care about gun control here?”
If you live in a country where you are not allowed to own guns, and you think that makes you safer, stay in your country and be content with the way it is. If you think that gun ownership in the U.S. makes it dangerous to travel here, stay away, we will not miss you coming here. When I have traveled to other counties, I go there accepting the culture, laws (or lack thereof), and standards of behavior. While I may not be able to speak the language as well as I would like, I make the effort. I try to accept the customs there, even if I do not agree with them. Maybe those of you living outside the U.S. should give it a try. Mind your own business.
Before anyone jumps on the “Look at how America pushes its policies on other countries” bandwagon; I am not going to debate that topic here. I am not talking about countries interfering with other countries politics. What I am talking about here are individuals in other countries trying to push their beliefs on people in the U.S., or believing that the laws they live under are the only way a society can exist. I feel that the choice to own or not own firearms is a personal thing. Make you own choice. I will respect it and I will ask the same from you. If those of you outside the U.S. are happy with your laws, great, if not, take action to change it. While I may think your willingness to forfeit your rights is foolish, I respect your right to do so. Please extend the same courtesy to me.

 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 10:08 PM on December 1, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.