Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm Norwegian and Swedish. My family lives in Norway, Sweden, and Finland. This is news to me.
In fact many parents in Scandinavia won't give their children guns to play with. They think children playing with guns is grotesque. I was not allowed to have a toy gun or toy soldier toys as a child.
This is an outright lie.
Also Switzerland is not a Nordic country which is what you seem to be talking about. Switzerland and Sweden are two very different countries that are very far apart.
Perhaps it is Switzerland, but I remember reading it and being quite impressed. The bottom line is, it's nnot a question of the tool but rather the carpenter. If we had a different mentality in this country, every home could be well armed and we still would not have the issues we have now with gun violence. A gun itself has never killed anyone. It takes a human to screw things up and they can and will screw it up with or without the use of a gun.
Nearly every house having a gun in no way shape or form equates "strictly controlled".
Nonsense!
Those issued with weapons, as I provided proof of with an earlier link, are very strictly controlled.
Those who purchase their own firearm are predominantly purchasing long guns for hunting or sport competitive shooting. Those who desire to purchase pistols and handguns are VERY strictly controlled with similar if not identical laws as applicable in Canada, to those operating in a licensed security function or limited to home-range points of presence and there is no such thing as a common CCW for any boob who can sign his name in those countries you choose to hold up as evidence in a fallacious preposition.
All weapons in those countries you mention are very strictly controlled, but handguns even more remarkably so by comparison to your country.
ONCE AGAIN: Ownership numbers do not equate to lack of controls.
You keep pulling Switzerland out of the hat like the proverbial rabbit to prove magic with numbers will work.
Removing the Militia member issued weapons numbers due to them being VERY strictly controlled - the Swiss have HALF your rate of desired "ownership". at 45.7% as compared to your 88.8% with Canada just below theirs at 30.8%.
You hold the Swiss up as special while completely ignoring the next highest level of ownership to that of the U.S. is SERBIA! Howcum? It doesn't fit your fallacious narrative, that's why.
Perhaps it is Switzerland, but I remember reading it and being quite impressed. The bottom line is, it's nnot a question of the tool but rather the carpenter. If we had a different mentality in this country, every home could be well armed and we still would not have the issues we have now with gun violence. A gun itself has never killed anyone. It takes a human to screw things up and they can and will screw it up with or without the use of a gun.
Those issued with weapons, as I provided proof of with an earlier link, are very strictly controlled.
Those who purchase their own firearm are predominantly purchasing long guns for hunting or sport competitive shooting. Those who desire to purchase pistols and handguns are VERY strictly controlled with similar if not identical laws as applicable in Canada, to those operating in a licensed security function or limited to home-range points of presence and there is no such thing as a common CCW for any boob who can sign his name in those countries you choose to hold up as evidence in a fallacious preposition.
All weapons in those countries you mention are very strictly controlled, but handguns even more remarkably so by comparison to your country.
ONCE AGAIN: Ownership numbers do not equate to lack of controls.
You keep pulling Switzerland out of the hat like the proverbial rabbit to prove magic with numbers will work.
Removing the Militia member issued weapons numbers due to them being VERY strictly controlled - the Swiss have HALF your rate of desired "ownership". at 45.7% as compared to your 88.8% with Canada just below theirs at 30.8%.
You hold the Swiss up as special while completely ignoring the next highest level of ownership to that of the U.S. is SERBIA! Howcum? It doesn't fit your fallacious narrative, that's why.
Nearly every household has a gun but few are killing each other. Why is that?
When you open the floodgates arming 300M people, you also weaponize the mentally sick, the drunk, the stoned and many children. Thousands of weapons will be lost or stolen ending in the hands of gang members. The theoretical separation between guns and people who (wrongly) use them exists only in your mind.
Nearly every household has a gun but few are killing each other. Why is that?
Because the same people who own those guns, approve of, proposed and enacted the control laws in place ALSO believe firmly; ownership for reasons of self defense being the last of the intents for those personally desired weapons whereas the bulk of the popular jargon for ownership in the U.S. is exactly opposite and predominantly handgun centric.
Those other countries are not driven by the meme of a freedom being restricted because a firearm is strictly controlled. They rather believe their freedom to a life less infringed is enhanced by lack of a plethora of weapons in everyone's hands.
One has to ask "how free are you exactly, if you firmly believe you NEED a weapon for self protection from your fellow citizens in your country"?
Let's not waste any time at all on that ridiculous concept that a handgun on your person is supportive of a free country from a tyrannical administration. Let's instead confine this discussion to those who would trot out as the definitive argument that U.S. citizens deserve and require personal weapons for self defense, then we'd be getting somewhere. All of that other meaningless chatter drops away and you're left with the overarching question......WHY?
You ask leading question about Americans with guns.
You get a reasonable answer.
You didn't like answer because it disproves the fallacy you were trying to prove.
You reject answer then give your own answer.
i.e. You state that Americans who have guns are afraid.
You state this as "fact", even though by your own statements, have no idea about American society.
Doesn't work that way son.
You are just making general insult at Americans & American society, which by your own statements say you don't understand. And by your actions, don't care to understand either.
(BTW, I personally don't own any firearms)
I do own firearms, (for hunting) but I don't carry them everywhere I go. Why don't you tell me why people carry guns for self defense, if it's not fear of people who may harm them or their family, then what is the reason?
Because the same people who own those guns, approve of, proposed and enacted the control laws in place ALSO believe firmly; ownership for reasons of self defense being the last of the intents for those personally desired weapons whereas the bulk of the popular jargon for ownership in the U.S. is exactly opposite and predominantly handgun centric.
Actually it's the first. The government doesn't provide them guns to encourage simple target practice.
Quote:
Those other countries are not driven by the meme of a freedom being restricted because a firearm is strictly controlled. They rather believe their freedom to a life less infringed is enhanced by lack of a plethora of weapons in everyone's hands.
Less infringed means they carry them on their backs through town and no one says a word about it.
Quote:
One has to ask "how free are you exactly, if you firmly believe you NEED a weapon for self protection from your fellow citizens in your country"?
I don't believe that. I don't own a gun. I just recognize that the constitution alllows other to for whatever reasons they come up with.
Quote:
Let's not waste any time at all on that ridiculous concept that a handgun on your person is supportive of a free country from a tyrannical administration. Let's instead confine this discussion to those who would trot out as the definitive argument that U.S. citizens deserve and require personal weapons for self defense, then we'd be getting somewhere. All of that other meaningless chatter drops away and you're left with the overarching question......WHY?
I do not care why. Just the same as I recognize that some use thier free speech on things I agree with and some not.
Because the same people who own those guns, approve of, proposed and enacted the control laws in place ALSO believe firmly; ownership for reasons of self defense being the last of the intents for those personally desired weapons whereas the bulk of the popular jargon for ownership in the U.S. is exactly opposite and predominantly handgun centric.
Those other countries are not driven by the meme of a freedom being restricted because a firearm is strictly controlled. They rather believe their freedom to a life less infringed is enhanced by lack of a plethora of weapons in everyone's hands.
One has to ask "how free are you exactly, if you firmly believe you NEED a weapon for self protection from your fellow citizens in your country"?
Let's not waste any time at all on that ridiculous concept that a handgun on your person is supportive of a free country from a tyrannical administration. Let's instead confine this discussion to those who would trot out as the definitive argument that U.S. citizens deserve and require personal weapons for self defense, then we'd be getting somewhere. All of that other meaningless chatter drops away and you're left with the overarching question......WHY?
Yes, let's just ignore the entire purpose behind the 2nd Amendment as described by the people who wrote it. That way we can attack people who own firearms on a personal basis rather than admitting that the people who created this country recognized that the ownership of firearms for defense of one's home, property, and family from all threats - up to and including that of a tyrannical government - was a necessary part of a nation which was founded on the principles of liberty.
That's pretty much what you and the rest of the hoplophobes who argue against the ownership of firearms have been doing since the 30s. Oddly enough, every time that your side has made advances in your anti gun legislation it has resulted in either no effect on crime or an increase in the very crimes that you were trying to prevent. In the 30s automatic weapons were banned, although outside of a few skirmishes between rival gangs they were never used in crime. In the 90s you managed to get both an assault weapons ban and a gun free zone law passed. The instances of school shootings more than doubled after the GFZ went into effect, and the AWB was so ineffective that even its supporters couldn't drum up enough support to keep it from sunsetting. On top of that, this nation is riddled with cities which have draconian gun laws yet extremely high rates of firearms crime. Why is it that your side seems to increase the violence rather than decrease it?
On the other hand, since more and more states have made CCW permits available to the average citizen, we've seen a drop in firearms related crime across the board. So please, tell us again how more firearms means more firearms crime while historical data in the US, which quite frankly is the only country that matters in this discussion, shows otherwise.
Those who purchase their own firearm are predominantly purchasing long guns for hunting or sport competitive shooting. Those who desire to purchase pistols and handguns are VERY strictly controlled with similar if not identical laws as applicable in Canada, to those operating in a licensed security function or limited to home-range points of presence and there is no such thing as a common CCW for any boob who can sign his name in those countries you choose to hold up as evidence in a fallacious preposition.
How are they controlled?
Unless you have a behavioral modification chip the control is entirely cultural, since if there is a culture of following regulation, then people who are from that culture will be more apt to follow, if they are from the converse then they will be less apt to follow. Once a gun is owned how it's used is entirely at the discretion of the owner.
CCW is a red herring, the stats prove that there is no higher incidences of homicide or illegal shootings by CCW holders than any other segment. Indeed the stats show the opposite, they are far less likely to shoot than someone who is not a permit holder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
All weapons in those countries you mention are very strictly controlled, but handguns even more remarkably so by comparison to your country.
Control only persists to point of sale, as discussed above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
ONCE AGAIN: Ownership numbers do not equate to lack of controls.
Well once owned any gun control is purely at the discretion of the owner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
You keep pulling Switzerland out of the hat like the proverbial rabbit to prove magic with numbers will work.
Removing the Militia member issued weapons numbers due to them being VERY strictly controlled - the Swiss have HALF your rate of desired "ownership". at 45.7% as compared to your 88.8% with Canada just below theirs at 30.8%.
That's a fallacious argument unless the Swiss Militia cannot access their weapons ever without prior release. Is this what you are saying? That the Swiss Militia firearms they keep are stored in electronically sealed containers that require a release code sent by Militia command?
If not then again it's only cultural constraint that prevents the use of those firearms for intents other than intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
You hold the Swiss up as special while completely ignoring the next highest level of ownership to that of the U.S. is SERBIA! Howcum? It doesn't fit your fallacious narrative, that's why.
Well it also doesn't fit the narrative to compare the US homicide figures to other Continental Northern and Southern American countries. Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico all have higher firearms deaths annually than the US and far lower firearms ownership rates. Of the entire northern and southern continents the US has the second lowest homicide rate (after Canada). Considering that the historical similarities (however distasteful it may seem) are greater between the US and Mexico, or US and Brazil than Europe, why are US homicide figures always compared to Europe? Gun owners didn't pick the battleground
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't fit your fallacious narrative, that's why. 
