Gun Control III

You called attention to Switzerland's unrestrictive gun laws

I am quite tired of the whole canard about Switzerland and it's gun laws. Yes Switzerland has high gun ownership, but they have strict laws on that ownership.

Here are some examples.
In order to purchase most weapons, the purchaser must obtain a weapon acquisition permit.
In order to purchase ammunition, the buyer must follow the same legal rules that apply when buying guns.
To carry a firearm in public or outdoors a person must have a gun carrying permit.
Even the vaunted Swiss Militia does not live up to the gun nut hype. Though the militia members have their weapons at home they are not supplied ammo. They must go to their armory in order to get ammo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/..._laws_in_Switzerland#Acquisition
Unlike what gun nuts want to people to believe Switzerland has very strict gun laws.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Another gun nut argument that is pernicious but very east to destroy.
If we based our society on the premise that is the basis of the ‘Criminals don’t follow laws’ and ‘Gun Control only hurts law-abiding citizens’ argument against gun control, then why have any laws at all.

I truly wonder about the morality of people that follow this line of thinking.

quote:

---

After all, when gun advocates say that they are being ‘hurt’ by gun control, let’s be clear what the actual implication of this statement is: my right to not be bothered in the least by regulation outweighs the right to life for thousands of innocents who die in the absence of said regulation. Not only can such gun reforms reduce the number of homicides, but there is very little controversy about the tremendous effect they would have at reducing suicides. So, the belief that laws aimed at saving lives “hurt law-abiding citizens” is completely incompatible with any sane definition of right and wrong.

---

http://www.armedwithreason.com/...gument-against-gun-control

http://www.armedwithreason.com/...als-respond-to-gun-control

I know the gun nuts don't care and will not take them to read, but both these articles have numerous links to hard data and actual studies. Something gun nuts never seem to provide.

Kind of telling that you do not provide a source. CDC reports on guns make no mention of gangs. Hmm, care to actually support this claim.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

His post is a classic example of my signature line. Fits the vast majority of fundies, wingnuts and ammosexuals we see on this site.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

Seems people are forgetting the % part.

The Ed Chenel thing has been going on and been debunked since at least 2001. You will not be able to find any sources to verify the data because it is not factual.

Ed Chenel is not a real person.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/...-led-to-higher-crime-rates

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Edited by Theodoric, : Url

Ypu presented it as factual. I showed how it was a lie. You might want to look at current Australian crime figures. Robberies started dropping in 2001 and were below preban level by 2004 and have continued to drop ever since.

Here are all the official crime stats. Evidently you are incapable of doing your own research. Here they are prove me wrong.

http://www.abs.gov.au/...017-18~Main%20Features~Australia~23

http://www.abs.gov.au/...0lower%20than%20a%20decade%20ago%20(Media%20Release)~1

Is Australia lying?

Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while they are at home

Then again you have no evidence that this is true do you?

If you don't believe that dramatic increase happened, then we just have to leave it there.

We believe in factual data. If you can provide a source that provides data that affirms this we will believe it. Alas, you cannot do this can you?

Edited by Theodoric, : Extra words

Slavery as a legal institution is archaic. It is part of the US Constitution. Not allowing women and non property owners and non-whites to vote is archaic. Not directly electing Senators is archaic. Having the vice-President be the second place in the election for President is archaic. Allowing a Poll tax is archaic.

Need I continue?

And I'm sure you have the 3/5 provision wrong as most people do, preferring to see it as a judgment on the humanity of slaves, but it wasn't. Since they were property they were counted as 3/5 of a person having to do with representation in Congress or something like that.

Your complete lack of understanding or humanity still amazes me. in the first statement you say it was not a judgement on their humanity and in the next you acknowledge they were property. I am sure you do not understand the utter depravity of that, but then again you never will. If there were a hell there would be a special place for the self righteous inhuman Christians like you.

I have no doubt that that is true

Correction. Guns are more likely to NEVER be used at all.

No. Wrong. That is not a correction. That is a different and irrelevant, to Percy's statement, data point. Cars are likely to never be involved in a major accident, but we still legislate safety controls in case they are.

which is why being in the insurance business is profitable. But it sure is nice to have when its needed.

But we can not require gun owners to have liability insurance? Kind of hurting your own argument with that statement.

I do find it ironic that you choose to live in a state that probably sets the gold standard for gun ownership rights. I think maybe you should move to Illinois which is heavily restrictive... its obvious their laws are working. New Hampshire is just too dangerous with all of their lax gun laws. I hear Chicago is lovely, especially this time of year.

That your argument has no validity is shown by the continuing trotting out of this widely debunked and discredited argument. The gun laws in IL are not prohibitively restrictive.
State lines do not stop guns. WI and IN have very lax gun laws.
Comparing Chicago to New Hampshire is never a legitimate argument.
https://www.npr.org/...hicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

But there's another statistic, and that is far more likely that a gun never hurts anyone ever.

As I said that statistic is irrelevant. Using this argument we should give every person even children guns and not regulate them at all because statistically even less of a % will be used to hurt anyone. The old canard that guns don't hurt anyone people do. Logically it is a stupid argument.

I think you misunderstand my premise.

It is a stupid premise. An insurance policy does not protect your from things happening. It reimburses you for the financial cost. In no way is that similar to using a gun.

I appreciate you making the point for me... that gun laws have no impact on criminals or criminality that use them.

No I did not make that argument. It takes some severe manipulation of facts and reality to get to that conclusion.
Here are two articles filled with original source material that I am sure you will not even bother to consider.
http://www.armedwithreason.com/...gument-against-gun-control
http://www.armedwithreason.com/...als-respond-to-gun-control

Very good point. For the majority of people insurance has an extreme cost. The cost of insurance though, is not death. It is just financial. If the cost of using a gun was just financial people would not have a problem with it. Alas, the potential cost of a gun is death, most of the time that cost is paid by the user or a family member.
That gun ownership = insurance is a ridiculous argument. There is nothing analogous about them at all.

By that same logic, we should throw out every law since almost every law has been broken. We have laws against murder, but people still commit murder, so let's get rid of that law. People still steal stuff even though it is against the law, so let's get rid of it.

That is the fallacious argument discussed in the websites I posted that Hyro dismissed out of hand.

quote:

---

Not only is this conservative sound-bite irrelevant to gun reform discussion, it’s also socially untenable and dangerously naïve. If we were to accept that a law is justified only if it has a 100% compliance rate (this is, necessarily, the logical extension of any position that renounces legal reform under the pretense that ‘criminals don’t obey laws’), then we could systematically dismantle every existing law until nothing remains but the state of nature. Laws against murder, rape, and theft would be abandoned out of fear that criminals wouldn’t follow them, and that they would thus hurt law-abiding citizens who ostensibly murder, rape, and thieve out of self-defense. Taking this argument to its logical endpoint, even the most hardened of libertarians would be reticent to accept a world where property crimes can be used to abrogate property rights.
Not to mention that there are already plenty of weapons that have been banned which criminals aren’t using– RPGs, machine guns, anti-tank weapons, surface-to-air missiles, and so on. Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean that criminals automatically have a desire to use said weapons, or have access to a black market that could supply them.

---

http://www.armedwithreason.com/...gument-against-gun-control

Edited by Theodoric, : Clarification