2 Lives Saved...

jillio said:
Nope. Its still a no. Switzerland does not have specific neighborhoods that require all residents to own a gun. It requires men of specific ages deemed to be in service of the military, to have weapons.
Click to expand...

What happened to humans that don't have their self defense other than having stupid guns? Bears have claws to tear up their predators, cats have claws to pounce and grab their meals. Humans would need to have fists to protect themselves if guns were never invented.
 
sequoias said:
What happened to humans that don't have their self defense other than having stupid guns? Bears have claws to tear up their predators, cats have claws to pounce and grab their meals. Humans would need to have fists to protect themselves if guns were never invented.
Click to expand...

**nodding**
 
sequoias said:
What happened to humans that don't have their self defense other than having stupid guns? Bears have claws to tear up their predators, cats have claws to pounce and grab their meals. Humans would need to have fists to protect themselves if guns were never invented.
Click to expand...
we had clubs, sticks and spears long before guns... eventually we evolved into inventing arrows.
 
jillio said:
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland’s unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.


Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

Part of their military system, not as private citizens. Completely different situation. This is not a requirement for living in a specific neighborhood.

Additionally, if statistics on gun deaths are not kept, we don't really know how low, or how high, they are.
Click to expand...

I find this interesting that the Swiss doesn't have a formal military to defend itself. And that their 'training' is for only a few days or weeks at a time throughout their lives. I'm thinking what would they do in a national crisis? I would think it would have been easily taken over if they didn't have a game plan in place in case of an attack.
 
Dixie said:
I find this interesting that the Swiss doesn't have a formal military to defend itself. And that their 'training' is for only a few days or weeks at a time throughout their lives. I'm thinking what would they do in a national crisis? I would think it would have been easily taken over if they didn't have a game plan in place in case of an attack.
Click to expand...

Their citizens are Switzerland's soldiers. They are not interested in having offensive-type military force. My friend is a Swiss citizen. He's told me some tales about it. He's pretty well-trained and they're ready to defend their country against any invasion anytime, anywhere within a short notice.

The training is not a "few days." The basic training is about 3-4 months. After that - you have to go several weeks-long training periodically for next several years. They're required to do yearly shooting exercises as well. My friend has served in Kosovo as a peacekeeper so these guys do know what to do in case of national crisis.

That's why Switzerland was never occupied by Nazi. :cool2:
 
Jiro said:
again - read my post #10. I've mentioned it in old locked threads.

Kennesaw, GA aka Gun Town USA
Click to expand...

Law is on the books. Its not enforced.

No one knows for sure how many Kennesaw residents actually have guns, as no door-to-door inspections are made,

Though the penalty for violation is minimal, and there has been no attempt to enforce the statute,

PublicRights.org - The New American

You can't determine the effectiveness of a law that isn't enforced.:cool2:
 
jillio said:
Law is on the books. Its not enforced.

No one knows for sure how many Kennesaw residents actually have guns, as no door-to-door inspections are made,

Though the penalty for violation is minimal, and there has been no attempt to enforce the statute,

PublicRights.org - The New American

You can't determine the effectiveness of a law that isn't enforced.:cool2:
Click to expand...

sorry but it works. Compare that to Morton Grove, IL. and Chicago - these with its crime rating skyrocketing since gun ban. Like I said in my post in other thread - you do not have to own the firearm. It's the mind game that won - if the criminals have any ounce of intelligence, they would think twice before breaking into someone's home. Apparently - it works.

Thanks for link. From your link -

Q. Have you done any studies showing the result stringent gun-control laws have had on crime?

A. There has been a case study of the city of Chicago. Some of the suburbs in Chicago that have banned the possession of handguns have shown dramatic increases in crime after those laws took effect, whereas a law in Kennesaw, Georgia, that required everybody to own a gun dropped the crime rate to virtually nothing. One of the most important studies was the Wright-Rossi Foundation study out of Massachusetts. It's interesting that both of these people, before they started their survey, were inclined towards banning firearms and heavy regulation of firearms for the public. When they got through with their study and looked at all the facts and figures, they totally reversed their opinion and came to the conclusion that firearms laws aimed at the law-abiding citizen do not work.
Click to expand...

TNA June 9, 1997:

March 25th marked the 15th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. Since the ordinance was enacted, there have been only two murders (one each in 1984 and 1989), both with knives.

After the law went into effect in 1982, crimes against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981 and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And the crime rate has stayed impressively low. In addition to virtually non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.14 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.7, 30.2, 20.6, and 1.6 through March of this year.
Click to expand...

again - thank you for the link. you just proven my statement in my post #35.
 
Jiro said:
sorry but it works. Compare that to Morton Grove, IL. and Chicago - these with its crime rating skyrocketing since gun ban. Like I said in my post in other thread - you do not have to own the firearm. It's the mind game that won - if the criminals have any ounce of intelligence, they would think twice before breaking into someone's home. Apparently - it works.

Thanks for link. From your link -





again - thank you for the link. you just proven my statement in my post #35.
Click to expand...

Sorry Jiro. The law is not enforced. No one knows how many guns are owned in Kennesaw. Without the law being enforced, you cannot, in any way, determine that it is effective or ineffective. It has to be enforced to determine that. Without the law being enforced, you cannot say it is responsible for anything, because Kennesaw, in this respect, is no different from any other part of the country. The have an ordinance that is not enforced, therefore, there is nothing different about this town. Since there is no difference, you can't say that something that does not exist is responsible for anything.
 
jillio said:
Sorry Jiro. The law is not enforced. No one knows how many guns are owned in Kennesaw. Without the law being enforced, you cannot, in any way, determine that it is effective or ineffective. It has to be enforced to determine that. Without the law being enforced, you cannot say it is responsible for anything, because Kennesaw, in this respect, is no different from any other part of the country. The have an ordinance that is not enforced, therefore, there is nothing different about this town. Since there is no difference, you can't say that something that does not exist is responsible for anything.
Click to expand...

what.....a.....weak..... argument..... I'm sorry that you can't see an obvious thing. it's ok. Moving on.... :cool2:
 
Jiro said:
what.....a.....weak..... argument..... I'm sorry that you can't see an obvious thing. it's ok. Moving on.... :cool2:
Click to expand...

Not weak at all. A law that is not enforced cannot have an impact one way or the other. It simply doesn't exist except in writing, and that doesn't have an impact on anything.
 
have some Cherry Garcia :)
 
It's good news and got love with gun rights.
 
jillio said:
And yes, someone who is a danger to themselves and others as a result of mental illness needs to be on a locked ward in a mental hospital.
Click to expand...

The problem is people may not always be a danger to themselves or others. Some can regularly take medications and they are fine most of the time and the medication can fail at other times.

Additionally, people who are successful with medications will eventually believe they are fine without their meds thinking they are cured or OK and stop taking them. Then you have an incident similar to this.

Its unfortunate that someone lost their life, and these families will be forever changed...but it does support ones right to protect their lives within their homes. I really do not care to be bludgeoned to death by some guy with broken bottle in my own home.
 
Back
Top