Guns, Guns, Guns!!!

[Mindmaster]

Switzerland issues every adult a gun and trains them how to use it: Switzerland has lowest gun-related crime rate in the civilized world.


Adult men are issued military grade rifles to be kept in the home.
Cultural differences are a huge part of the reason the Swiss have such a low
homicide rate.
That country isn't the vast melting pot of races, religions, and culture the
U.S.A. is.

Oh, Switzerland is! It speaks French, German, and Italian as official languages. It is totally a melting pot!
The Swiss have kept out of WW2 just for the fact that Hilter knew every single one of them was armed and knew how to shoot.

But, they don't keep ammo in their homes.

 

[jeager106]

Oh, Switzerland is! It speaks French, German, and Italian as official languages. It is totally a melting pot!
The Swiss have kept out of WW2 just for the fact that Hilter knew every single one of them was armed and knew how to shoot.

But, they don't keep ammo in their homes.

Thanks for the information.
I didn't realize that.
Know what a gun without ammo is called?


A CLUB.

 

[suncowiam]

It is! And it's a good "leg". Constitution don'cha'know?

NRA’s more than 4 million members—a number that has more than tripled since 1978.

Wonder how many N.R.A. members have committed mass murder?

NRA is a less-likely-to-murder subset of the legal gun owning public, which is itself a much less likely to murder subset of the overall gun owning public. It's generally illegally owned guns which are the most dangerous. One still may believe in gun control otherwise, which is independent of that.

I'm not an N.R.A. member. Once was but got sick and tired of being solicited
for money and still more money.
I donated $25 bucks a few times decades ago and was solicited for more money again and again via telephone, mail and internet e-mail.
I donated for a while then added up what I donated in one year.
Over $300 bucks! I couldn't afford to keep that up.
The N.R.A. gets a little stupid with paranoia.
This
(CCRKBA) Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms, less rabid, and sensible, and
is a much more moderate group.
Does anyone blame the weapon used or the culture that spawns murder in the name
of some "god"?
Know how easy it is to make a bomb from articles already in most homes?
I do. I won't publish the "how" anywhere.
Recall the home made bomb made with a pressure cooker?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...zine-pressure-cooker-bomb-directions/2088109/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...zine-pressure-cooker-bomb-directions/2088109/

I could post more but am afraid some bozo might try to make one and hurt someone.

I know how to turn a 50 pound sack of fertilizer into a nasty powerful explosive.
( Bomb school, police work don't cha' know)
Part of my job was to defuse home made bombs.
Made me nervous. A lady once gave me a hand grenade she found found in
her departed hubby's closet.
I gave it to the Akron bomb squad to destroy.
I sure wasn't going to training or not.
In bomb school we did throw live grenades under CLOSE supervision.
It was a blast.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Sorry.

I disagree on the 2nd amendment. As I mentioned earlier, I find it seriously out of reality to today's world. If the goal is to prevent a tyrannical government, then owning guns is a big smoke screen, IMO.

Also, I'll just give this as an extreme example but just because something is the law, doesn't make it morally right or logically right. Slavery is a good example.

But, yes, everyone and their grandmothers will throw the 2nd amendment at me and then, of course, I'm technically wrong.

If we want change, then change has to come from updating the 2nd amendment. Do I want to abolish guns? No. But the ideal that everyone has the right to own a gun to prevent a tyrannical government, IMO, is far-fetched that doesn't represent today's reality.

 

[Palehorse]

Oh, Switzerland is! It speaks French, German, and Italian as official languages. It is totally a melting pot!
The Swiss have kept out of WW2 just for the fact that Hilter knew every single one of them was armed and knew how to shoot.

But, they don't keep ammo in their homes.

Nah, Hitler was afraid of these things...

 

[Mindmaster]

I COMPLETELY see the anti gun perspective.
I also see how and why that stance is so emotional.
Murder is so personal.
It seems that of a psychological perspective family members can deal with a loved
one being killed in an auto accident.
But firearms deaths are so "preventable". Or so it seems
Just eliminate firearms.
Why not eliminate personal vehicles and let people take mass transit?
Mass transit using electricity driven vehicles reduces the carbon foot print.

I understand the problem as well, however, most of the shooting are black-on-black and in the bad neighborhoods. They are 90%+ of the shooting in the entire United States. South Chicago is literally 10% of the whole, add Baltimore, add Flint, add Birmingham... etc... Most of the shooting crime is localized to less than 10 places. What will taking the guns from the people outside of that area do to change that number? The south-side of Chicago is completely safe if you are a white guy and not in a gang (trust me, been through there enough) and not so much if you are black guy in a gang or not. The problem is these areas of violent gang activity, not the guns. There are already laws on the books to deal with them, but neither the FBI or Obama enforce it.

 

[Mindmaster]

I disagree on the 2nd amendment. As I mentioned earlier, I find it seriously out of reality to today's world. If the goal is to prevent a tyrannical government, then owning guns is a big smoke screen, IMO.

Also, I'll just give this as an extreme example but just because something is the law, doesn't make it morally right or logically right. Slavery is a good example.

But, yes, everyone and their grandmothers will throw the 2nd amendment at me and then, of course, I'm technically wrong.

If we want change, then change has to come from updating the 2nd amendment. Do I want to abolish guns? No. But the ideal that everyone has the right to own a gun to prevent a tyrannical government, IMO, is far-fetched that doesn't represent today's reality.

The 2nd Amendment was about protecting us from our own government. It's that simple. It was never about guns, or killing people. Once you give up that right, it's hard to get it back.

 

[suncowiam]

The 2nd Amendment was about protecting us from our own government. It's that simple. It was never about guns, or killing people. Once you give up that right, it's hard to get it back.

I agree that we should have an amendment to continue to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, but the method outlined and interpreted is questionable?

Couldn't we come together as a nation to think of other methods then just handing out guns to everyone?

Muskets and cannonballs. That was pretty much the arsenal way back then when this amendment was created. We have to consider the context of then and now. The irony I find is that guns today simply won't stop a tyrannical government.

 

[jeager106]

The 2nd Amendment was about protecting us from our own government. It's that simple. It was never about guns, or killing people. Once you give up that right, it's hard to get it back.

Yup. That's it in a nutshell.
Why don't we eliminate the 1st and 4th amendment instead.
Whoooooooooooooo-rahhhh.
If the gov'ment did that there WOULD be an armed insurrection.
I HOPE.
I'd be among those armed to stop that chit.
Somehow I think most liberals would be a bit upset if that happened.
Enough of this.
I'm a gonna go out back and go fishing.
I often pray while fishing. I might as well as I can't even catch a cold.
" Lord please let me catch a fish to big that even I may never have to tell another lie."

 

[suncowiam]

Yup. That's it in a nutshell.
Why don't we eliminate the 1st and 4th amendment instead.
Whoooooooooooooo-rahhhh.
If the gov'ment did that there WOULD be an armed insurrection.
I HOPE.
I'd be among those armed to stop that chit.
Somehow I think most liberals would be a bit upset if that happened.
Enough of this.
I'm a gonna go out back and go fishing.
I often pray while fishing. I might as well as I can't even catch a cold.
" Lord please let me catch a fish to big that even I may never have to tell another lie."

Just to be clear. I'm not saying to remove the 2nd amendment. But the essence of it is to prevent a tyrannical government, which I agree on. The method is which we are debating...

 

[jeager106]

"The irony I find is that guns today simply won't stop a tyrannical government."
In this country?
Wanna bet there are plenty that would try.
I admit that rifles against attack helicopters is a loosing proposition.
Gorilla warfare is a different matter.
The "wolfpacks" after WW ll ended created lots of mayhem.
I knew a man who at age 15 was blowing up allied supplies and troops
after the war ended.
He was Hitler Youth which he said was like our Boy Scouts.
Really?
He was a nice fellow but blew his brains out.
Nazi don'cha'know?

 

[jeager106]

Just to be clear. I'm not saying to remove the 2nd amendment. But the essence of it is to prevent a tyrannical government, which I agree on. The method is which we are debating...

Thanks. We agree.
We in this country try to prevent a repressive government by voting.

 

[Palehorse]

I'm a gonna go out back and go fishing.
I often pray while fishing. I might as well as I can't even catch a cold.
" Lord please let me catch a fish to big that even I may never have to tell another lie."

Don't forget your fish gun!

 

[Skwim]

Oh, Switzerland is! It speaks French, German, and Italian as official languages. It is totally a melting pot!
The Swiss have kept out of WW2 just for the fact that Hilter knew every single one of them was armed and knew how to shoot.

I'm afraid it was far more complicated than many of its citizens possessing a hunting rifle and relatively few rounds of ammunition.

At the outbreak of World War II in 1939, Switzerland immediately began to mobilize for a possible invasion. The transition into wartime was smooth and caused less controversy than in 1914. Parliament quickly selected the 61 year-old career soldier Henri Guisan to be General. By early September 430,000 men had been mobilized, though most of these were sent home during the ensuing Phoney War.

Over the course of the war, detailed invasion plans were drawn up by the German military command, such as Operation Tannenbaum, but Switzerland was never attacked. Switzerland was able to remain independent through a combination of military deterrence, economic concessions to Germany, and good fortune as larger events during the war delayed an invasion. Attempts by Switzerland's small Nazi party to effect an Anschluss with Germany failed miserably, largely as a result of Switzerland's strong sense of national identity and long tradition of direct democracy and civil liberties[citation needed]. The Swiss press vigorously criticized the Third Reich, often infuriating its leadership. In turn, Berlin denounced Switzerland as a medieval remnant and its people renegade Germans. Under General Henri Guisan's central command, the military of Switzerland was mobilized to defend the country from possible foreign intrusion. The Swiss military strategy was changed from one of static defence at the borders, to a strategy of organized long-term attrition and withdrawal to strong, well-stockpiled positions high in the Alps known as the National Redoubt. This controversial strategy was essentially one of deterrence. The idea was to cause huge losses to German forces and render the cost of invading too high. During an invasion, the Swiss Army would cede control of the economic heartland and population centres, but retain control of crucial rail links and passes in the National Redoubt.
source: Wikipedia
__________________________________

Taking Switzerland, however, was a fool’s errand. The Swiss topology is not very conducive to invasion by tanks, which were some of Nazi Germany’s stronger assets. On top of that, while Germany would have been able to take Switzerland (although not without suffering significant casualties, as Switzerland’s populace was well armed), Switzerland was prepared to blow up much of its own infrastructure if invaded. So even though Switzerland is wedged between Germany and France, the strategic value of occupying the neutral nation was tiny. But when France surrendered to Germany on June 25, 1940, the strategic value of Switzerland became moot. Momentarily, Hitler’s focus switched to Germany’s neighbors to the southwest, with Germany planning its Switzerland invasion that same day.
Momentarily, Hitler’s focus switched to Germany’s neighbors to the southwest, with Germany planning its Switzerland invasion that same day.The plan, titled Operation Tannenbaum, went through many revisions over the next few months, but by October, a plan had been set: Germany would invade Switzerland with 11 divisions of troops with Italy providing additional support. In total, the proposed Axis forces may have numbered as many as 500,000 men.


While Hitler was apparently repeatedly interested in invading Switzerland, he never gave the go-ahead to invade — and we don’t know the precise reason why. There are many theories. Perhaps he was too busy focusing on other battles — the final Operation Tannenbaum plan was completed around the same time Germany lost the Battle of Britain, and just a few months before Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union. Maybe others convinced Hitler that Swiss neutrality was a valuable asset, or that the fact that the Swiss had 20% of the adult male population under arms meant that any invasion would simply be too costly. Or perhaps he never got around to it.


Regardless, if Hitler had his way, Switzerland would not have been a neutral sovereign; it would have been a German territory.
source


.​

 

[Neo Deist]

I understand the problem as well, however, most of the shooting are black-on-black and in the bad neighborhoods. They are 90%+ of the shooting in the entire United States. South Chicago is literally 10% of the whole, add Baltimore, add Flint, add Birmingham... etc... Most of the shooting crime is localized to less than 10 places. What will taking the guns from the people outside of that area do to change that number? The south-side of Chicago is completely safe if you are a white guy and not in a gang (trust me, been through there enough) and not so much if you are black guy in a gang or not. The problem is these areas of violent gang activity, not the guns. There are already laws on the books to deal with them, but neither the FBI or Obama enforce it.

An interesting fact from the FBI stats on violent crime:

Blacks make up ~13% of the US population.
Blacks are responsible for over half the murders in the US every year.
Most killings involving blacks are indeed black on black.

 

[Palehorse]

Most killings involving blacks are indeed black on black.

Could black on black also mean shiett on sunni?

 

[suncowiam]

An interesting fact from the FBI stats on violent crime:

Blacks make up ~13% of the US population.
Blacks are responsible for over half the murders in the US every year.
Most killings involving blacks are indeed black on black.

Numbers can be misleading here without all the context.

Poverty is a huge correlation to crime rate. We know folks in poor neighborhoods are more likely to commit crimes.

What is the medium income for blacks? When normalized to say hispanics or whites and similar income, does the ratio of race, income and crime rate remain the same for blacks, hispanics and whites? Or does it clearly show that blacks still have more of that ratio?

I follow where all the numbers lead, so it's not just trying to assume a fair or equality stance. I'm just saying we're probably missing some other factors that also correlate with crimes.

 

[YmirGF]

An interesting fact from the FBI stats on violent crime:

Blacks make up ~13% of the US population.
Blacks are responsible for over half the murders in the US every year.
Most killings involving blacks are indeed black on black.

I doubt any move to limit people of certain ethnicities would fly very well regardless of what the numbers say.

 

[YmirGF]

Could black on black also mean shiett on sunni?

Sunni and Shia can be of any race. So, no.

 

[Palehorse]

Sunni and Shia can be of any race. So, no.

Why are the sunni and shia fighting against each other in the war then? I hope I aint going off topic too far. RF don't like me... I sense my time with all of you is limited.

 

[Nietzsche]

Why are the sunni and shia fighting against each other in the war then? I hope I aint going off topic too far. RF don't like me... I sense my time with all of you is limited.

Why do Catholic and Protestant Irish fight each other?