Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 32. (Read 36627 times)

?

Ukraine was not a sovereign country during IIWW.

Again, thinking that Switzerland role in IIWW is somewhat related with their gun policy is way beyond retarded.

I've spent a fair bit of time in Switzerland.  Mostly around Lake Geneva.  Absolutely beautiful.  One of the nicest places on the planet that I have seen.
You see guns there about as much as you see them in the USA, which is to say, almost never, and only by folks in a uniform.
There is periodic required military reserve service.  It is done in good humor, but is probably closer to what we in the US think of as camping than military activity.
It is not a great example of rights to self protection, a good one but not great.

And BTW, just to finish the Switzerland digression: the vast majority of firearms in possesion of Swiss citizens are directly provided by the State, with always sealed ammunition to be opened only in case of exercise or war. In Switzerland you won't see huge "gun centers" where retards gather on weekends to buy the newest ammo or the last model of the semi automatic rifle.

Again, the immense majority of firearms in circulation are just 3/4 types of firearm, army-issued weapons, you will see no thriving "gun" market and most important, no one in Switzerland is allowed to carry a firearm unless a) they work in security related jobs or b) they are en route to training with their unit. They just have to store them at home as it is their military duty.

Really don't get why some US libertarians take Switzerland as an example - it is one of the most regulated (in a "liberal" way) countries in the world.

I lived in Switzerland for two weeks. I was surprised to see military rifles being carried in the open, especially by security at the airports. Also, from what I've read and understood, "neutral" only worked while the country crossing over you wasn't interested in you. I come from a "neutral" country, Ukraine, which was only "neutral" until either the Nazis wanted to control it, or the Soviets. So I don't think just them saying "Hey, we're neutral" was what spared Switzerland. Perhaps Switzerland claiming they were "neutral" was just a reuse, and they were really ok with Nazis using them, but didn't want anyone else to know *shrug*

Wow, Rassah, I'm sorry but you are demonstrating a total lack of knowledge of what you are talking about. Your claim regarding Switzerland is laughable at best (but I feel is pitiful because I'm sure many US "pro-guns" would agree on such a complete nonsense), the III Reich army could have crushed a country like Switzerland in one second, they were "spared" because they were neutral.

Also Spain, Portugal and Sweden were "spared", just because like Switzerland they where neutral countries and not of strategic interest (at least in that stage) for the Axis. In fact, the strategic interest of neutral countries is crucial. You usually do not "mess" with a neutral country in a world war scenario simply because "neutral" does not mean only "I will not attack you", means also "I will export goods to your country, you can commerce here, spy, and I can serve as a safe place for refugees of all the parts". In the case of Switzerland, it also meant "everybody can sell me their gold if they need liquidity", which is a very useful asset in a world war scenario.

Last but not least, the German army didn't showed much fear when they violated Swiss airspace hundreds of times despite of the continuous diplomatic complaints and the immense pressure of the Allies for this to stop (there were threats of Switzerland to be considered an Axis territory if Nazi planes continued to cross their airspace). I could go on forever but I would digress, I just tried to quickly show you how completely wrong is your vision about why Switzerland has not been involved in IIWW (and BTW, they weren't neither in IWW)...

Maybe you should do a nice trip to Switzerland, stay one month, and try to understand what is the relationship of its population with their guns, maybe you would be surprised.

Switzerland:

- Squirreling away art for the Nazis
- Mountainous terrain
- Strict gun laws
- Neutrality

And you're claiming the lesson is guns?

So you had a very dark time, when the population was disarmed, and some very nasty people with guns came in to occupy and butcher people without guns. Then those nasty gun-totin' people were eventually kicked out when other good people with guns came to fight them off. And the lesson you guys learn is that it's best to disarm the population again? So that if any more nasty people with guns come, you'll once again be helpless? Why not take your lessons from Switzerland, which was practically the only country no one wanted to mess with, and just keep yourselves armed?


Can you argue that if the population was not disarmed in the first place, it would have been a lot harder for German guns to take over the population of other countries? The argument you said is retarded is pretty much the argument for MAD, with nuclear missles and USSR and USA keeping from destroying each other.

Well, everybody could acknowledge that both the USA and the USSR played a significant role in saving Europe from the Nazis thanks to the immense fire power of their armies, so it could be argued that thanks to guns Europe could get rid of Hitler, but its simply retarded as you can argue back that the German guns were what was slaughtering them in first instance. Pretty much a pointless and dumb argument if you ask me.

I'm not sure how you define "free" but central and eastern Europe were occupied by the USSR.

Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and the UK were never occupied. I'm guessing Andorra wasn't either but I don't even know if it existed back then.

France and Italy fought on the side of the Axis, and were defeated by the Allies, so they weren't exactly "freed".

Only a few countries were "freed".

I wouldn't say that 200 and something years is "very very long time ago" when talking about history... But I guess you can consider it "very very long time ago" if your country was born just 200 and something years ago.


Because nobody sane in Europe is proud of IIWW, in fact is one of the darkest moments of the last Century. Millions of people were butchered. Pretty obvious stuff.


You will not see any significant/relevant pro-gun movement in most of Europe. We could say that gun-nuts exist in Europe, but they are pretty voiceless and considered just crazy nutjobs. In the US gun-nuts have a very loud voice, and they consider themselves as a pillar of their community, a representation of the will of their beloved founding fathers.

If you don't have the right to posses guns, then you have no rights. What you have is permission from the authorities.

Wait, is this a serious question? (and sorry, I was rounding, it was 1945)

70 years ago? Who gained independence in 1943?

And a lot of them do like their guns. In some European countries you're forced into the military.

Uh, that was the revolutionary war, and that was not recent history. That was a very very long time ago.

On the other hand, guns are a liberation tool that made everyone in Europe free just 70 years ago. How come Europeans don't like guns, even though they got their freedom thanks to them much more recently?

That's woefully naive and ignorant.

For several periods of a couple years each, I had guns nearby or carried them.  This is in work I did in the US in various cities.  It was always reasonably compliant with local, state and federal laws.

It's not something to be avoided "at all costs", as you put it.  It is something that is proper in circumstances in which a reasonable person might judge it to be proper.

And of course guns are not "cool toys with magical 'freedom power'...".

Except in those unfortunate circumstances and moments when that is EXACTLY what they are.  Whether those moments arise as the result of criminals, gangs, rapists, Somalian pirates, or governments I don't think really matters.

While we dream of a better world (unfortunately for some that means forcing their beliefs and ideas about behavior on others) we must deal with reality, dirty and nasty as it may be in places.

No. That isn't the fault of the kids, or the protection.

It's not that simple. Here in the US you can gauge your risk of being shot by the gun laws. The more restrictive, the more likely you will be killed with a gun per capita. New York, LA, and Chicago are the most dangerous places and you have the least gun rights. In rural parts of the US murder is almost unheard of and most people you meet have at least one gun.
I saw another example in the Balkans back in the 90's. The Serbs were letting the unarmed Croats have it. They would sweep in to a town before dawn, then the slaughter would begin.  Once the Croats were armed and trained the killing came to a halt. The Serbs militias had little interest in fighting armed men.

You cannot remove violence from society because the society itself create it.
add guns = add more violence

btw :
overprotect children = make them more attractive to pedo + raise them too feel like victim

Fix this problem first, please.
http://rainn.org/

After you end violence, then comes the time to contemplate removing the abilities of self defense.

There is no way I will ever understand why people still defend the right of carrying weapons.