The thing is you can't take guns out of the US so that point is rather moot, the thing is that besides that point there's no real valid reason to put them in place.
The thinking started from a thread asking if the gun laws in the UK should be relaxed. Now as most know we have no truck with gun ownership over here. You can buy one but it has to be kept at a gun club in a locked container probably with the ammo stored in a separately locked compartment, sentry guns and dogs on patrol and a small nuclear device attached to the doorbell... or some such overkill. We like to make certain
So here you won't find guns involved in many crimes. So that kind of undermines the idea that criminals will get hold of and use illegal weapons despite any ban. If you know that the opposition will ramp up their responses a hundred fold at the merest mention of a weapon then most criminals seem to see a gun as a very, very serious undertaking (except the gang bangers but there's no accounting for some folk). If a guns involved you will get an armed response unit, you will be dealt with with the maximum extents of the law and you will probably never recover from it... ever.
As to why it works in Switzerland, one person got it right I think because Switzerland doesn't really have a large percentage of people who are destitute do they? It would appear on the surface that a large divide between the haves and have nots which contributes to the gun problem.
Now in terms of freedom, there is no freedom in a civilised country. It doesn't exist. Admittedly the more things you're allowed to do does increase your personal freedom but I think that gun ownership is such a small part of the overall experience of life and freedoms that it's not that big of a deal.
Thinking of intruders I have two thoughts. Firstly why is it necessary for a professional like a policeman to identify their intentions, give adequate warning and only shoot when given little other choice but for a home owner it's just "he's on my land, BANG"? I mean sure every person who breaks in to your home could be a gun toting maniac... but there again you probably pass him on the street. So perhaps you should just shoot people who look like they might break in, as the next logical step. Or shoot people who trespass onto your garden. It'd certainly cut down on kids kicking their ball on to your flowers.
"Can I get my ball back?" steps forward tentatively.
BANG!. "Nope"
Sure if you're in a country where gun ownership is prevalent then you'd have to be a seriously ill intentioned or desperate person to break into someone's house but also if you are that determined then you're going to bring your own firepower to even the field... hence fuelling the fire.
The fact is that people defend and attack every day without resort to firearms. They should be, as a lethal option, treated a little more seriously in my opinion. Just handing out a Raging Bull with your cereal is irresponsible.
Has anyone tried to pass some sort of law regarding having to qualify for gun ownership? I mean I know you have to pass certain checks like not being crazy and having the patience to wait three days or however long it is but what about aptitude or basic training? How many accidental deaths are there which could be prevented with better training? How many more lives could be saved, for the pro gun lobbyists, if people were shown how to operate their new ego extension when they bought it?
I know there's a world of difference between giving out training and requiring a pass mark but at least if you did require a pass then you're going some way to guaranteeing that the instruction actually sank in and that people aren't just being a zombie through the whole thing. Of course setting somewhere up to train the umpteen millions who'd need the certification would be a pain in the neck...
Perhaps if the requirement was that you had to serve to own a gun or something. Then it's a serious life choice and not just another purchase like a VCR?
As to the idea that cars should be banned, I'm firmly of the belief that the tests should be a lot more comprehensive and shouldn't be built on some daft idea that a human being is born with a god given right to drive. What do people expect with the degradation of concepts such as honour and being neighbourly when everything which previously had to be earned is now given away with abandon? If you don't give something value then it is valueless.
Edit-
Guns don't kill more people, people can still kill without a gun.
Guns make convenience food out of what was once a roast dinner with all the trimmings. Bet most people eat more convenience food than roast dinners.
<- This is my smug face
The thinking started from a thread asking if the gun laws in the UK should be relaxed. Now as most know we have no truck with gun ownership over here. You can buy one but it has to be kept at a gun club in a locked container probably with the ammo stored in a separately locked compartment, sentry guns and dogs on patrol and a small nuclear device attached to the doorbell... or some such overkill. We like to make certain
So here you won't find guns involved in many crimes. So that kind of undermines the idea that criminals will get hold of and use illegal weapons despite any ban. If you know that the opposition will ramp up their responses a hundred fold at the merest mention of a weapon then most criminals seem to see a gun as a very, very serious undertaking (except the gang bangers but there's no accounting for some folk). If a guns involved you will get an armed response unit, you will be dealt with with the maximum extents of the law and you will probably never recover from it... ever.
As to why it works in Switzerland, one person got it right I think because Switzerland doesn't really have a large percentage of people who are destitute do they? It would appear on the surface that a large divide between the haves and have nots which contributes to the gun problem.
Now in terms of freedom, there is no freedom in a civilised country. It doesn't exist. Admittedly the more things you're allowed to do does increase your personal freedom but I think that gun ownership is such a small part of the overall experience of life and freedoms that it's not that big of a deal.
Thinking of intruders I have two thoughts. Firstly why is it necessary for a professional like a policeman to identify their intentions, give adequate warning and only shoot when given little other choice but for a home owner it's just "he's on my land, BANG"? I mean sure every person who breaks in to your home could be a gun toting maniac... but there again you probably pass him on the street. So perhaps you should just shoot people who look like they might break in, as the next logical step. Or shoot people who trespass onto your garden. It'd certainly cut down on kids kicking their ball on to your flowers.
"Can I get my ball back?" steps forward tentatively.
BANG!. "Nope"
Sure if you're in a country where gun ownership is prevalent then you'd have to be a seriously ill intentioned or desperate person to break into someone's house but also if you are that determined then you're going to bring your own firepower to even the field... hence fuelling the fire.
The fact is that people defend and attack every day without resort to firearms. They should be, as a lethal option, treated a little more seriously in my opinion. Just handing out a Raging Bull with your cereal is irresponsible.
Has anyone tried to pass some sort of law regarding having to qualify for gun ownership? I mean I know you have to pass certain checks like not being crazy and having the patience to wait three days or however long it is but what about aptitude or basic training? How many accidental deaths are there which could be prevented with better training? How many more lives could be saved, for the pro gun lobbyists, if people were shown how to operate their new ego extension when they bought it?
I know there's a world of difference between giving out training and requiring a pass mark but at least if you did require a pass then you're going some way to guaranteeing that the instruction actually sank in and that people aren't just being a zombie through the whole thing. Of course setting somewhere up to train the umpteen millions who'd need the certification would be a pain in the neck...
Perhaps if the requirement was that you had to serve to own a gun or something. Then it's a serious life choice and not just another purchase like a VCR?
As to the idea that cars should be banned, I'm firmly of the belief that the tests should be a lot more comprehensive and shouldn't be built on some daft idea that a human being is born with a god given right to drive. What do people expect with the degradation of concepts such as honour and being neighbourly when everything which previously had to be earned is now given away with abandon? If you don't give something value then it is valueless.
Edit-
Guns don't kill more people, people can still kill without a gun.
Guns make convenience food out of what was once a roast dinner with all the trimmings. Bet most people eat more convenience food than roast dinners.
<- This is my smug face
Last edited:
