Gun Debate Discussion

[jedidia]

the Swiss soldiers have shown to be very responsible in keeping their weapons and those who don't want them at home can already have them deposited at the arsenals.

While I agree that there is *very* little abuse of army weapons, it simply seems strange to forbid the selling of serial fire weapons and then pass out one to every average male over twenty to keep at home... Not that we had a lot of trouble with it, the whole concept seems just a bit paradoxical.

The suicide argument is, of course, clawing the air. Noone needs a battle weapon at home to kill himself if he wants to, indeed most suicides are commited by "conventional" means even if there is a rifle available.

 

[Ghostrider]

While I agree that there is *very* little abuse of army weapons, it simply seems strange to forbid the selling of serial fire weapons and then pass out one to every average male over twenty to keep at home... Not that we had a lot of trouble with it, the whole concept seems just a bit paradoxical.

Well, the sale of select-fire weapons is *restricted*, not prohibited. To own a select-fire weapon you need a special permit and go through checks. They used to do checks on soldiers even before they got to their first day of training, don't know how it is now.

The suicide argument is, of course, clawing the air. Noone needs a battle weapon at home to kill himself if he wants to, indeed most suicides are commited by "conventional" means even if there is a rifle available.

Besides, the argument that some medics who support the initiative is downright hypocritical "even if it saves one life it's worth it, human life is priceless"... That from the medics who will refuse to cure you if you haven't paid health insurance because you don't have the money. The price of a human life is about 200 CHF per month, the way it is now.

 

[JEL]

My personal experience is that it is not the 'weapon', or tool as you could just as well label it, that is the determining factor in whether a situation seems scary or safe, but rather the people (or animals! you can't outrun, or reason with, a rabid dog) involved.

Guns are just as often, if not more often, saving lives than taking them. The same can probably be said about most tools/weapons, I would think.

Here's a story of a rabid dog that apparently attacked 50 people in Moscow in 2009:

Had 1 of these people carried a gun... maybe, just maybe, it would have been different.
Nothing is all bad or all good.

 

[Urwumpe]

Here's a story of a rabid dog that apparently attacked 50 people in Moscow in 2009

A certified dog trainer could have been better. Rabid dogs are out of control, but still dogs.

 

[jedidia]

They used to do checks on soldiers even before they got to their first day of training, don't know how it is now.

When I was doing service (10 years ago) we didn't have any of the sort. A friend of mine had to go through a pretty tough procedure when he wanted to turn in his rifle and do arm-less service after his parents have been shot at the Luxor massacre, and I know another friend who served with someone that actually had a psychological examination that considered it dangerous to give him a firearm, and they gave him one none the less. In general, from what I observed they pretty much force the thing on you, and whatever reason one states for not wanting one gets dismissed as "being lazy" or something along those lines...

The price of a human life is about 200 CHF per month, the way it is now.

that's a pretty cheap insurance you got there!

 

[Ghostrider]

When I was doing service (10 years ago) we didn't have any of the sort.

Which branch were you in?

In general, from what I observed they pretty much force the thing on you, and whatever reason one states for not wanting one gets dismissed as "being lazy" or something along those lines...

Lol, we had one soldier who had medical papers stating he couldn't:
- wear a helmet
- wear the weatherproof gear
- wear the boots
- carry a backback over 5kg

... But he had no problems with the rifle. He was actually a mean shot...

that's a pretty cheap insurance you got there!

The cheapest I could find. I wouldn't even pay for it, every time I needed it it was useless or they made up all the excuses they could find not to pay up. I have married a medic (ok, she's a pathologist but a medic nonetheless) and she's the best insurance I could ever find.

 

[jedidia]

Which branch were you in?

Air support troops (Fliegertruppen. Yes, I spenta lot of time in Payerne). The man with the psychological examination was with the sappers. They finaly took him the rifle about 3 months in, after repeated complaints of his comrades that they felt very unsafe around him... He was often shaking while loading the rifle, and generally disturbed and distracted when holding it in hand...

The cheapest I could find. I wouldn't even pay for it, every time I needed it it was useless or they made up all the excuses they could find not to pay up.

You might want to try sympany, my wife has had very good expieriences with them. We have an international insurance now, since we don't have a permanent residence in Switzerland at the moment. It turns out to be a lot less expensive, too...

 

[Ghostrider]

Air support troops (Fliegertruppen. Yes, I spenta lot of time in Payerne).

Nice place... Is the F-5 wing sunbathing damage story reality or urban legend?

They finaly took him the rifle about 3 months in, after repeated complaints of his comrades that they felt very unsafe around him... He was often shaking while loading the rifle, and generally disturbed and distracted when holding it in hand...

Hm, guys like that used to last very little in the Infantry. Then again I was in RS some 20 years ago (summer of 1990) and paid rank as NCO in 1992. I'm old enough to remember the hand grenade model 43...

You might want to try sympany, my wife has had very good expieriences with them. We have an international insurance now, since we don't have a permanent residence in Switzerland at the moment. It turns out to be a lot less expensive, too...

Thanks, but as far as I'm concerned they're all a bunch of corrupt, filthy hive of scum and villainy. Damn them all. Damn them all... To Hell!

 

[jedidia]

Nice place... Is the F-5 wing sunbathing damage story reality or urban legend?

I don't know for certain, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it was true... I certainly think that every few years someone had the idea, and a few of them certainly saw it through, and if someone was clumsy enough it's not hard to damage that wing. It's a bloody piece of cardboard!

 

[Ghostrider]

I certainly think that every few years someone had the idea, and a few of them certainly saw it through, and if someone was clumsy enough it's not hard to damage that wing.

That might be the most expensive goof ever, probably only topped by the guys who lost a Leopard 2 in the woods... :lol:

 

[JEL]

A certified dog trainer could have been better. Rabid dogs are out of control, but still dogs.

They're not as easy to carry around though

Here's another story which happened only 10 days ago:

Baramulla, Jan 11: A four-year old boy died today after he was critically injured in an attack by a rabid dog

Sometimes you just can't have the ideal solution.

 

[Urwumpe]

You also have many cases of children being killed by perfectly healthy dogs, which just got trained by their owners into aggressive combat machines. Often not intentionally, but by pure ignorance for the nature of dogs.

Shooting the dogs is often the last resort, in my opinion, shooting the owners of such maltreated dogs first would be better, but hey, these are civilized times now.

 

[Unstung]

You also have many cases of children being killed by perfectly healthy dogs, which just got trained by their owners into aggressive combat machines. Often not intentionally, but by pure ignorance for the nature of dogs.

Shooting the dogs is often the last resort, in my opinion, shooting the owners of such maltreated dogs first would be better, but hey, these are civilized times now.

Except dogs are not made to kill. Either case, it is the fault of the owner.

 

[Ghostrider]

Except dogs are not made to kill. Either case, it is the fault of the owner.

Dogs, like all animals, are made to survive and if it includes killing someone else, they will do it.

The "guns are made to kill and hence are inherently evil" argument is not only naive, it's nonsense. Guns are made to shoot. What you're shooting is your decision. I think we're grown enough to know inanimate objects do not have any form of intelligence and cannot make decisions on their own (well, maybe AIs and particularly clever programs can, but it's another can of worms). Human responsability is paramount, always. If you do not trust your citizens to be responsible, or if you're putting limits on their freedoms because some of them may not behave in a responsible manner, how can you trust them to vote? Might as well put shackles on them and call them slaves.

 

[Urwumpe]

Except dogs are not made to kill.

Dogs are predators, of course they kill. You should never forget that when dealing with dogs. Even the most harmless family dog can try to kill a human, if the situation forces him that way. Dogs are not completely instinct driven, which makes them pretty similar to humans, they can think and decide themselves. But the instinctive behavior is still deep inside them and can take control.

And usually, what defines the situation for a dog, is how the rest of his pack reacts - for domesticated dogs, the owner and key humans.

I am a Collie fan. Which are, technically speaking, one of the most harmless races of dogs that exist. But even they can easily be turned into a psychological wreck, especially because of their evolution as shepherd dogs.

 

[tl8]

Don't you have sheep in Germany?

[Insert Funny Sheep joke about New Zealand Here]

 

[Urwumpe]

Don't you have sheep in Germany?

[Insert Funny Sheep joke about New Zealand Here]

We have to bear about the same Sheep jokes about Lower Saxony (my state of Germany). Which are actually anything near the truth, since other states have more sheep. Lower Saxony is more famous for horses, you immediately notice you are back in Lower Saxony when traveling by train, when you suddenly see horses everywhere.

 

[T.Neo]

Shooting the dogs is often the last resort, in my opinion, shooting the owners of such maltreated dogs first would be better, but hey, these are civilized times now.

Indeed... the fact that people can mistreat an animal like that, so it then becomes a danger to other people, especially children, is really bad. Sometimes it just boils down to people being badly ignorant about the situation at hand.

The "guns are made to kill and hence are inherently evil" argument is not only naive, it's nonsense. Guns are made to shoot. What you're shooting is your decision. I think we're grown enough to know inanimate objects do not have any form of intelligence and cannot make decisions on their own

Indeed, and it's important to note that mechanically, inside a firearm there isn't anything specifically designed to kill humans. A projectile might be designed to inflict the maximum amount of damage possible on a body, but it really goes back to square one in that it's up to the shooter as to where the weapon is pointed...

Dogs are predators, of course they kill. You should never forget that when dealing with dogs.

Indeed. And they are more equipped to kill than humans... their entire biology and physiology is centered around predation.

Ok, so canids in the wild do a fair amount of scavenging, but that doesn't mean they're not adapted for predation.

Even the most harmless family dog can try to kill a human, if the situation forces him that way.

I'd like to see a chihuahua try to kill a human... :uhh:

[Insert Funny Sheep joke about New Zealand Here]

I don't think you'd be pleased to hear that in South Africa at least (and probably NZ as well), the sheep jokes are usually about Australia... :shifty:

 

[Urwumpe]

I'd like to see a chihuahua try to kill a human... :uhh:

He'll make you fall and bite you in the neck. Maybe even just jump for that. The small ones are the most psycho. :lol:

 

[Dambuster]

The "guns are made to kill and hence are inherently evil" argument is not only naive, it's nonsense. Guns are made to shoot. What you're shooting is your decision. I think we're grown enough to know inanimate objects do not have any form of intelligence and cannot make decisions on their own (well, maybe AIs and particularly clever programs can, but it's another can of worms). Human responsability is paramount, always. If you do not trust your citizens to be responsible, or if you're putting limits on their freedoms because some of them may not behave in a responsible manner, how can you trust them to vote? Might as well put shackles on them and call them slaves.

I agree with that, but I said I didn't like them because they're made for the purpose - I didn't say they were evil (and I don't think they are) (I'm assuming you were responding to me - if not then that's just me clarifying myself).

Also, trusting a person to vote ≠ trusting them with a gun. Voting is (hopefully) a peaceful process where you tick some sort of box (whether it's on a piece of paper or a computer), and your decision is added to a pile of other decisions, with the overall effect of putting another person into a position of responsibility.

Owning a gun is another can of worms. If you allow an ordinary person to have a gun, you are giving that person the ability to threaten, wound, maim or kill from a distance. Whether it's 5 meters or 500 meters, I don't care. I've read people saying that it's not so different from owning a knife - I say BS to that. I'm willing to bet that it's FAR easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife, so therefore IMO it follows that guns should be more restricted than knives. Also, I agree that it is plainly true that it's the owner's responsibility, not the gun's. But I fail to see how this means guns should be less regulated. The fact remains that by giving a person a gun, you are giving them the ability to kill a person with little or no warning, from a distance. Why do people need that ability?

Indeed, and it's important to note that mechanically, inside a firearm there isn't anything specifically designed to kill humans. A projectile might be designed to inflict the maximum amount of damage possible on a body, but it really goes back to square one in that it's up to the shooter as to where the weapon is pointed...

True, but I'm pretty sure that the number 1 trend in guns over the past few hundred years has been a steady increase in overall lethality. A gun is essentially a glorified pipe which can contain a lot of pressure for a short time, but that setup is what allows it to do damage.

And although it is of course the wielder's decision and responsibility as to what he does with the gun, why should he/she be given that responsibility?