Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 15.11.2011, 10:50
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,448
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,183 Times in 7,629 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Sarcasm, right?

I would go on the theory that statistics could show an idiot with a gun is more likely to kill someone than an idiot with a car.
I say that despite the massive number of idiots driving in Switzerland.
about 370 people die each year from motor accidents in switzerland (excluding non-fatal injuries). if we banned cars from switzerland, we'd probably save around 370 lives each year.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #22  
Old 15.11.2011, 11:06
glennsche's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: zurich
Posts: 303
Groaned at 9 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 425 Times in 139 Posts
glennsche has an excellent reputationglennsche has an excellent reputationglennsche has an excellent reputationglennsche has an excellent reputation
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
The other option which no one has yet discussed is introducing non-lethal weapons like spud guns. Although they are unlikely to stop an advancing convoy of heavy tanks and artillery, their whimsical "popping" noise may well inflict joviality and childlike urges amongst their protagonists, ultimately leading to world peace and global man hugs.

This could however lead to more brutal killing with garden shears or gnomes bearing sharp edges during domestic rage and suburban violence.

you say "leading to global man hugs" like its a good thing.

im not sure i can support that.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 15.11.2011, 11:26
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Death in Neuchatel caused by gun.

Quote:
View Post
Here, I have some very sad news of someone killed by accident in Neuchatel, by a gun.

http://www.lematin.ch/faits-divers/h...tal-2011-11-14

It was a colleague of my partners, who was working the night we went and dined Saturday night in Neuchatel.

When you're next preaching about freedom of owning a gun, human rights and all that, I urge you to think of this young man of 23 years. Not only this guy, but the friend who was there who has been in hospital ever since on medication after being traumatised by seeing his friend killed, the trauma of the person who pulled the trigger, the sadness of all of his friends, and work mates. But in my opinion, the saddest part is his body being flown back to his family in Italy. How tragic, and what was it caused by....
A gun.

Shame on you who voted for that to happen.
First off, I'm sorry to hear about your colleagues. Something like that can only be traumatic and terrible.

This was not caused by a gun, in and of itself. It was caused by the action of a person holding the gun. This premise is comparable to saying that because someone was stabbed by a kitchen knife, it is the fault of the kitchen knife and all kitchen knives should be banned.

The majority of firearms accidents are caused by one thing- poor decision making by someone owning or using a firearm. A distant second cause is malfunction.

I'm sorry if I offend you, but I don't believe that my ability to defend myself and my family should be diminished because someone else made or may make a mistake.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
This user groans at Jobsrobertsharpii for this post:
  #24  
Old 15.11.2011, 11:42
Mud's Avatar
Mud Mud is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Romandie
Posts: 2,550
Groaned at 26 Times in 23 Posts
Thanked 5,002 Times in 1,826 Posts
Mud has a reputation beyond reputeMud has a reputation beyond reputeMud has a reputation beyond reputeMud has a reputation beyond reputeMud has a reputation beyond reputeMud has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Since every gun debate is pretty much a copy-paste of the last one I'll do one better and link the last big one here.

Swiss firearms vote
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank Mud for this useful post:
  #25  
Old 15.11.2011, 11:52
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
... i think the firearm deaths in the US every year number in the 10s of thousands, although im sure a number of them are "justified" and "defense" and not technically crimes.
I did a little looking around, and the U.S. Census estimate for 2010 for firearm fatalities in the US is 650, not tens of thousands...

Quote:
View Post
The US has its cultural myth of the Minute Man ready to go fight the brits, the cowboy in the old west, the rough frontiersman marksman davey crocket type, all the way to the present day belief of "an armed population can overthrow a repressive govt" thing. And, like it or not, its in the constitution, and that's fact.
These are not 'myths' but traditions of preparedness and individuality that too many Americans have abandoned for a false sense of government-subsidized safety. And the Second Amendment is a recognition and affirmation of the right to life (the right to defend one's life), and a legitimate check on the excesses of government (the government doesn't control all the guns).

Quote:
View Post
The swiss have their traditions too of fighting off habsburg encroachment on their territory (although this is admittedly pre firearm) which melds well with the marksmanship and militia fostered in the 19th century when Napoleon was thrown out finally and the Swiss realized that with the growth of the Levee en Masse national conscription armies of the 19th century theyd better match em or risk not being able to maintain independence in the face of armed neighbros. one reason for the "weapons at home" tradition that ive heard (dont know if its true tho) was that in the mid 19th century before the ubiquitousness of good rail networks and autobahnen, information travelled slowly and due to the rural nature of CH at the time, it would take an awful long time for the swiss to mobilize their soldiers, get them to their depots, and ship them out, so they opted for everyone to keep their stuff at home to expedite mobilization. Makes sense to me.
It makes a lot of sense, and that's why countries like Switzerland and others maintain an armed militia population.

Quote:
View Post
That neither of these large schools of thought for the US or CH are really relevant any longer seems to me to be beside the point: theyre part of the tradition of the countries mentioned and until those myths change the weapons arent going to go anywhere.
These schools of thought are absolutely relevant today. Every time in history that man has thought vigilance was no longer necessary, we've had a war. WWI was thought to be, "The War to End All Wars," but we ended up having WWII, despite Chamberlain's "Peace in Our Time," speech. We thought the Cold War was the last major conflict, and then a group of fanatics flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

BTW, if you take guns away, people who are determined to hurt and kill will just do it with something else.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 15.11.2011, 11:53
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Since every gun debate is pretty much a copy-paste of the last one I'll do one better and link the last big one here.

Swiss firearms vote

Yeah, its pretty much like politics and abortion. Nobody's gonna change any minds, I don't think.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 15.11.2011, 12:02
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,448
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,183 Times in 7,629 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
These schools of thought are absolutely relevant today. Every time in history that man has thought vigilance was no longer necessary, we've had a war. WWI was thought to be, "The War to End All Wars," but we ended up having WWII, despite Chamberlain's "Peace in Our Time," speech. We thought the Cold War was the last major conflict, and then a group of fanatics flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
i agree. the chance of a major armed conflict within europe will be increasing more and more over the next few years.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 15.11.2011, 12:06
100%'s Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Zürcher Oberland
Posts: 69
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 31 Times in 17 Posts
100% has become a little unpopular100% has become a little unpopular
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

@phdoofus

You are so naive to suggest i back up all things Swiss. Apparently it is Swiss to own a gun and Swiss to use public transport. I do neither and endorse neither here, so you cone shove that argument where the sun doesn't shine.

Backing up with statistics. I'm not even going to bother, for my statement is clear. If you want to show me statistics that suggest otherwise, I think they are the statistics we need to see.

My point is this. Millions of people get in a car and drive it all over the place every day, killing very few of the people around them. If millions of people (the same number of people) walked around with loaded guns all day (since if we are going to compare apples with apples, then our car is loaded and ready to kill therefore the gun has to be loaded and ready to kill) then surely there would be a lot more deaths by gun than deaths by auto.

Have I made this simple enough for you? Do I really need to come with statistics to show that your logic is flawed? If everyone in Switzerland ran around with their loaded guns all day, more people would die from accidental gunshot than from accidental auto collisions (a theory, I don't intend to write a doctoral thesis on it to satisfy your opinion to the contrary but am happy to invite you to counter it with your own thesis).

Last edited by 100%; 15.11.2011 at 12:09. Reason: to address the person replying to
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank 100% for this useful post:
  #29  
Old 15.11.2011, 12:14
Swissoconnors's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Nidwalden
Posts: 185
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 147 Times in 72 Posts
Swissoconnors has an excellent reputationSwissoconnors has an excellent reputationSwissoconnors has an excellent reputationSwissoconnors has an excellent reputation
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

As an addition to what 100% says (not saying I agree with either point of view, but I like statistics):

It would be interesting to see how many car-related accidental fatalities are caused by the driver, and how many by some other person or object (victim crossing the road without looking, child dropping stone from a bridge, sudden appearance of cat causing car to swerve into tree,...).
And also how many gun-related accidental fatalities are caused by someone other than the person in charge of the trigger.

Then you would also have to compare deliberate car-related fatalities (I'm sure there are some, if films are anything to go by) to deliberate gun-related fatalities.

I'm sure some other geek has already done this somewhere, just can't be bothered to google it.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 15.11.2011, 12:14
100%'s Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Zürcher Oberland
Posts: 69
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 31 Times in 17 Posts
100% has become a little unpopular100% has become a little unpopular
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Statistically, you're wrong. In both the US and in Switzerland, auto related deaths per 100,000 people outnumber gun related deaths per 100,000 people by a factor of 2-3. The difference is in Switzerland, most gun related deaths are suicides whereas in the US half are suicides and half are homicides. Thus, in CH, you're more likely to get run over by a banker late for a very important meeting or someone driving while texting than you are to get shot by someone. It's cute the way you defend all things Swiss but you should at least be backing up your claims with facts.
I agree with your statistic. But my theory has nothing to do with the odds on cause of death as it stands now, rather as to what is more dangerous in the hands of a moron. A car, or a gun?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 15.11.2011, 12:16
100%'s Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Zürcher Oberland
Posts: 69
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 31 Times in 17 Posts
100% has become a little unpopular100% has become a little unpopular
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
As an addition to what 100% says (not saying I agree with either point of view, but I like statistics):

It would be interesting to see how many car-related accidental fatalities are caused by the driver, and how many by some other person or object (victim crossing the road without looking, child dropping stone from a bridge, sudden appearance of cat causing car to swerve into tree,...).
And also how many gun-related accidental fatalities are caused by someone other than the person in charge of the trigger.

Then you would also have to compare deliberate car-related fatalities (I'm sure there are some, if films are anything to go by) to deliberate gun-related fatalities.

I'm sure some other geek has already done this somewhere, just can't be bothered to google it.
Me neither. it is purely academic at the end of the day. We probably can't change the guns or the driving. We just live on.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 15.11.2011, 12:49
phdoofus's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: City by the Bay
Posts: 2,357
Groaned at 96 Times in 56 Posts
Thanked 3,205 Times in 1,227 Posts
phdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond reputephdoofus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
I agree with your statistic. But my theory has nothing to do with the odds on cause of death as it stands now, rather as to what is more dangerous in the hands of a moron. A car, or a gun?
Dead is dead, regardless of whether you got shot by a gun or run over because of an inattentive driver. You aren't arguing a 'theory', you're putting forth an emotional reaction. A theory says 'X is the cause of Y', you're saying 'It's worse to be killed by X than by Y'. My statistics were a simple summary of numbers that are very easily found on the internet by a simple Google search. It took me 5 minutes. Nothing complex, trust me. Cars kill more people than guns because, unlike guns, it's likely that your average car owner doesn't think of their vehicle as a dangerous weapon and are, therefore, much less attentive to safety issues when using it. I suggest you start learning how to do it since you seem fond of making proclamations based on emotions and then asking everyone else to back up there statements with links and facts and statistics.
Reply With Quote
The following 6 users would like to thank phdoofus for this useful post:
This user groans at phdoofus for this post:
  #33  
Old 15.11.2011, 12:52
100%'s Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Zürcher Oberland
Posts: 69
Groaned at 6 Times in 5 Posts
Thanked 31 Times in 17 Posts
100% has become a little unpopular100% has become a little unpopular
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Goodness, there is no point trying to communicate with you.

I didn't say it is better be killed by a car than a gun or anything on those lines at all.
I said, if as many people had loaded guns as people that drive cars, for the same time as people drive cars, probably more people would die by loaded gun than by loaded car.

It is a theory. I am not going to try and spell it out any clearer for the academically challenged.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at 100% for this post:
  #34  
Old 15.11.2011, 12:59
Rodica's children's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Lausanne
Posts: 118
Groaned at 16 Times in 11 Posts
Thanked 78 Times in 60 Posts
Rodica's children has earned some respectRodica's children has earned some respect
Re: Death in Neuchatel caused by gun.

Quote:
View Post
Here, I have some very sad news of someone killed by accident in Neuchatel, by a gun.

http://www.lematin.ch/faits-divers/h...tal-2011-11-14

It was a colleague of my partners, who was working the night we went and dined Saturday night in Neuchatel.

When you're next preaching about freedom of owning a gun, human rights and all that, I urge you to think of this young man of 23 years. Not only this guy, but the friend who was there who has been in hospital ever since on medication after being traumatised by seeing his friend killed, the trauma of the person who pulled the trigger, the sadness of all of his friends, and work mates. But in my opinion, the saddest part is his body being flown back to his family in Italy. How tragic, and what was it caused by....
A gun.

Shame on you who voted for that to happen.
It is indeed tragic and I do sympathise. Guns must be handled with care and it appears that insufficient education was given to these young people about handling firearms. Ignorance can kill as easily as intention, give the guns a break from blame.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Rodica's children for this useful post:
  #35  
Old 15.11.2011, 13:01
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
If firearms were the only problem, then countries with strict firearms laws would be the safest places on earth. But in reality, some of them are the most dangerous where only criminals seem to have the monopoly. And by that logic also, Switzerland would have to be the most dangerous, but that isnt true either, and in fact there is a lot less gun crime here than elsewhere. Therefore the issue of no firearms means no violence is complete nonsense. The question here is how did a known unstable person come into contact with a firearm. That is whats to blame.



Right to bear arms isnt something just against foreign armies but more importantly to keep Government in check (History is littered with evidence of where Government has gone mad i.e. Germany), something many people in society have forgotten. People do have a right to defend themselves.

Wouldnt it be interesting to see how the holocaust in Germany would have turned out had citizens been armed? Or to see how long World War 2 might have lasted? I'd stick my neck out and say that the damage would have been a lot less and a lot less people would have died. There were many Germans who were against what was going on.

I dont have firearms by the way
It seems like a rather facetious remark to indicate that de-armament of a nation or society leads to an increase in gun related crime, I'd like to see your evidence for this, In the UK hand guns are banned and hand gun related crime is almost non-existent, the recent spate in the UK of rifle crime would be equally diminished if we banned all guns.

We don't have a 'right to bare arms', the Americans do, that is similar to the statement that morons who vote for UKIP spout out 'no taxation without representation', we don't have a constitution or bill of rights, America is over 2000 miles away, and the war of independence was over 200 years ago, meaningless statements referencing a system that is alien is pointless and confusing.

I think your last point about WW2 Germany is laughable to say the least; it was the Nazi death squads of the 30's that had the guns and forced the will of the party on the common man.

Based on your reasoning would it have been advisable to arm the Hutus and the tootsies, or the Bosnians? Do you think it’s a good idea to chuck them all Kalashnikovs and close the door? What a brilliant foreign policy...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #36  
Old 15.11.2011, 13:03
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,448
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,183 Times in 7,629 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Goodness, there is no point trying to communicate with you.

I didn't say it is better be killed by a car than a gun or anything on those lines at all.
I said, if as many people had loaded guns as people that drive cars, for the same time as people drive cars, probably more people would die by loaded gun than by loaded car.

It is a theory. I am not going to try and spell it out any clearer for the academically challenged.
calling a brain-fart a theory doesn't really give it more legitimacy.

coming up with hypothetical straw-man arguments doesn't really mean you win the argument.

people die from guns. a large proportion of those deaths are deliberate and so a high proportion would have happened anyway even if guns were eliminated from switzerland.

people die from car accidents. presumably most of these are not deliberate and so would not have happened if cars were eliminated from switzerland.

we accept guns because they secure the defence of the country and secure the freedom that all other freedoms are built upon.

we accept cars because they make our lives more convenient.

a small number of deaths each year is the price we pay for our freedom and convenience.
__________________
By replying to this post, you hereby grant Phil_MCR a royalty-free license to use, in any way, anything posted by you on the internet. If you do not accept, stop using EF and delete your account.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #37  
Old 15.11.2011, 13:25
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
calling a brain-fart a theory doesn't really give it more legitimacy.

coming up with hypothetical straw-man arguments doesn't really mean you win the argument.

people die from guns. a large proportion of those deaths are deliberate and so a high proportion would have happened anyway even if guns were eliminated from switzerland.

people die from car accidents. presumably most of these are not deliberate and so would not have happened if cars were eliminated from switzerland.

we accept guns because they secure the defence of the country and secure the freedom that all other freedoms are built upon.

we accept cars because they make our lives more convenient.

a small number of deaths each year is the price we pay for our freedom and convenience.

Hang on, hang on...

This is also a false comparison of the highest order; we do not 'need' guns. Is the ultimate price paid by the death of innocents for a toy equal to the necessity of a car? Well no, it's not, not at all
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #38  
Old 15.11.2011, 13:33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fribourg
Posts: 428
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 212 Times in 102 Posts
Millso has made some interesting contributions
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

We cannot directly compare gun related deaths to car related deaths, even when we (attempt to)factor in the disparity in total numbers and usage of each.

The car's main function is to get someone or something from A to B, the guns main function is to kill or seriously injure.

Most car deaths are accidents, most gun deaths are deliberate. You cannot compare the two and doing so does not advance the debate as you are comparing apples with oranges.

My personal opinion is not that guns kill people, but that people kill people. Whether they use a gun or a knife or a rope or a car doesn't change the fact that if someone wants someone else dead, it is going to happen one way or another.

While the removal of legal firearms from the home may lessen accidental gun deaths, I propose that it would only slightly lessen deliberate gun deaths. Other deliberate methods of killing may also rise a similar amount.

I'm sure that there are some that say that any lessening of death is a goal to strive for but if that were the case than pretty much everything would need to be banned, from electricity to pillows. Everything has the potential to kill but for our physical and mental well being some things need to be tolerated.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Millso for this useful post:
  #39  
Old 15.11.2011, 13:52
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,448
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,183 Times in 7,629 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Hang on, hang on...

This is also a false comparison of the highest order; we do not 'need' guns. Is the ultimate price paid by the death of innocents for a toy equal to the necessity of a car? Well no, it's not, not at all
i'd say defence and security are more important than being able to drive to the shops instead of taking the train.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 15.11.2011, 14:03
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
We cannot directly compare gun related deaths to car related deaths, even when we (attempt to)factor in the disparity in total numbers and usage of each.

The car's main function is to get someone or something from A to B, the guns main function is to kill or seriously injure.

Most car deaths are accidents, most gun deaths are deliberate. You cannot compare the two and doing so does not advance the debate as you are comparing apples with oranges.

My personal opinion is not that guns kill people, but that people kill people. Whether they use a gun or a knife or a rope or a car doesn't change the fact that if someone wants someone else dead, it is going to happen one way or another.

While the removal of legal firearms from the home may lessen accidental gun deaths, I propose that it would only slightly lessen deliberate gun deaths. Other deliberate methods of killing may also rise a similar amount.

I'm sure that there are some that say that any lessening of death is a goal to strive for but if that were the case than pretty much everything would need to be banned, from electricity to pillows. Everything has the potential to kill but for our physical and mental well being some things need to be tolerated.
finally, an intelligent comment, I agree but with a caveat:- some men can kill with their bare hands e.g. boxers, MMA guys ,special forces etc, these guys are licensed and arrested if they do so because it is easier for them to kill, a gun makes things really easy for anyone to kill, you try killing someone with a knife, bloody hard work, or strangling someone, it takes ages, the indiscriminant and easy method of killing by gun (or bomb) is the problem.

If someone wants to kill others we should keep it hard work.

It’s funny we don't have any opposing points of view about bombers, there are a few budding chemists and electrical engineers out there who would probably love constructing bombs for fun.

Its not alright to bomb but it is alright to shoot?
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:47.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0