Swiss gun ownership. NRA arguments seem to ring hollow

[wildrover77]

They aren't unarmed. It goes like this:

 

4 guys appear out of nowhere - two of them have guns at your head. You have two choices: Cooperate or die.

You get out of the car, they ask you if you have a gun. If you lie, they take it off you and probably kill you. If you tell the truth (and have a gun) they might be kind and just take it off you.

They take the rest of your valuables off your person. They ask you if you where the satellite tracking device on your vehicle is. They know you have one because of the type of vehicle you are driving and it being a requirement for insurance purposes (on higer-end vehicles, but by no means only porsche/ferrari high end). Give them any trouble, they kill you.

 

 

 

What evidence might that be? Got a credible reference?

 

 

 

Your experience appears to be zero.

 

Yes I do have evidence, I have already posted it above, it takes time, effort and money to read it though. The books i mean

 

If you do you will be enlightened.

[aris]

Yes I do have evidence, I have already posted it above, it takes time, effort and money to read it though. The books i mean

 

If you do you will be enlightened.

 

Seeing as you have the books - can you outline what they say with regards to police making more mistakes than civilians with guns?

 

Anyone can write a book - either pro or anti. I'm assuming you only choose to read the pro-gun stuff?

 

Again - i'm not anti gun. But I am pro sensible gun laws. You could argue that the UK go too far (perhaps they do), but that is what this particular society comfortable with.

[Steppenwolf]

John Lott did a statistical study in his book "More Guns Less Crime" where he said that police officers are more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than a person conceal carrying. He was originally not pro gun or anti gun but neutral and just wanted to do an impartial study. After researching this issue for a number of years he has in fact become pro-gun but he wasn't pro-gun and biased how everybody seems to think at the beginning of his findings.

 

The truth is us pro-gun people will argue from a pro-gun point of view and anti-gun people will argue form an anti-gun point of view. When you get peopel like Lock Stock wanting quotes from impartial sources, I am sorry but I don't know any, if you do then fair enough, post them and we shall see.

[gazzthompson]

They aren't unarmed. It goes like this:

 

4 guys appear out of nowhere - two of them have guns at your head. You have two choices: Cooperate or die.

You get out of the car, they ask you if you have a gun. If you lie, they take it off you and probably kill you. If you tell the truth (and have a gun) they might be kind and just take it off you.

They take the rest of your valuables off your person. They ask you if you where the satellite tracking device on your vehicle is. They know you have one because of the type of vehicle you are driving and it being a requirement for insurance purposes (on higer-end vehicles, but by no means only porsche/ferrari high end). Give them any trouble, they kill you.

 

 

you are intentionally setting your hypothetical up to fail and suit your point of view. its pointless, both sides of the argument can go back and forth with imaginary hypothetical situations pulled out of their *** tailored to suit their idea. biggest waste of time ever.

[aris]

you are intentionally setting your hypothetical up to fail and suit your point of view. its pointless, both sides of the argument can go back and forth with imaginary hypothetical situations pulled out of their *** tailored to suit their idea. biggest waste of time ever.

 

This is not hypothetical - this is how it actually is. Yes, sometimes victims carrying manage to get the better of their attackers. And sometimes they get shot too. Hijacking is a serious issue. The only country where something like this could be brought on the market - and totally legally!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/232777.stm

 

The company who made this product went out of business.

 

And if you don't believe what I have said - read this:

 

http://www.ohwatch.co.za/hijacking-awareness-guide/

 

How should I respond in the event of a hijacking?

· No matter how outraged you may feel at the time, your prime objective must be to look after your personal safety and that of your passengers. The preservation of human life must take precedence over material assets.

· Do nothing that is going to alarm the hijackers. Never initiate any movement yourself. This may give the hijacker the impression that you are reaching for a gun or panic button. Remember – the hijackers will be as nervous, if not more so, than you. Do not motion with your hands. Rather tell the hijackers where they can find the items. Keep you hands clearly visible and as still as possible, ideally at chest level. Do not raise them above your head as the hijackers may interpret this as you trying to attract the attention of a third party.

· Answer any Questions truthfully especially with regard to firearms. If the hijacker finds out or suspects that you have lied to him, he is more likely to turn violent and unleash his frustrations on you physically.

· Even in your shocked and terrified state, try to listen to and understand exactly what the hijackers want from you.

· Try to concentrate on the possibility of identifying your attackers at a later stage. But remember – this does not mean staring at your attackers, making it obvious that you are looking for a means of identifying them. Stare openly at them and they will be less willing to release you, as they will think that you have incriminating evidence against them.

· If they kidnap you – co-operate with them fully. If you have a baby sleeping in the back seat which they may not have noticed, tell the attackers. Tell them that driving away with your child is only going to make things more difficult for them. Ask them if they can fetch your child. Do not move towards the car without their explicit directive. Tell them that a baby means them no harm and is no threat. Do the same if you have a pet in the car. Do not push the issue to the point where your life may be threatened at the expense of a pet.

[aris]

The truth is us pro-gun people will argue from a pro-gun point of view and anti-gun people will argue form an anti-gun point of view. When you get peopel like Lock Stock wanting quotes from impartial sources, I am sorry but I don't know any, if you do then fair enough, post them and we shall see.

 

I agree with you here. There are good arguments on both sides of the debate. Sensible people are willing to see a middle ground. I don't see the NRA in the US as sensible though.

 

By the way - i'm not an 'anti'. Some might see me that way but only because my views don't align 100% with theirs.

[Steppenwolf]

That advice from that website is mostly good until the last bit. Once hijackers have control of you they can do with you what they like the whole premise is not to end up in that situation if you do it is almost likely they will kill you so you might as well if you can try to use force.

[aris]

That advice from that website is mostly good until the last bit. Once hijackers have control of you they can do with you what they like the whole premise is not to end up in that situation if you do it is almost likely they will kill you so you might as well if you can try to use force.

 

No - while there is a chance you will be killed, or kidnapped, most of these guys are pro's and they want the car with as little hassle as possible. If you co-operate, you will probably live. If you're armed, or lie to them about a gun or anything else, you may well be harmed. Of course avoiding a hijack is best - but not always possible. You will have no opportunity to use force when they have the advantage of surprise.

[Steppenwolf]

Then again that is in a way true. I mean even the most secure house or well armed individual can be broken into/harmed. The trick is to minimize the risk. A gun of course does not grant you superhuman qualities and immunity from assault but as Suzanna Hupp says: "It sure evens the odds a bit."

 

JUst think about it this way, even in Britain professional criminals are armed, so with a mostly disarmed populace it is even easier for them to carry out their job. If mroe people were armed it might just make some of them to think twice before robbing somebody. Being armed is not just about protecting yourself it is also the deterrent factor, eg: I sure won't break into that house or try to carjack that guy, this neighbourhood is awash with guns.

[Steppenwolf]

I have a South African guy working with me and he used ot aslo conceal carry in South Africa. He said that the law abiding gun owners are not the problem or even the guns themselves in South Africa. It is the massice drug/gang problem and the still apartheid and racial tension problem. Most of America is just as peaceful as the Uk it is urban inner city America that is the problem, just like our big cities in the Uk such as London, Manchester etc.

[aris]

I have a South African guy working with me and he used ot aslo conceal carry in South Africa. He said that the law abiding gun owners are not the problem or even the guns themselves in South Africa. It is the massice drug/gang problem and the still apartheid and racial tension problem. Most of America is just as peaceful as the Uk it is urban inner city America that is the problem, just like our big cities in the Uk such as London, Manchester etc.

 

There is no special permit needed in SA to conceal carry - most people who carried a firearm did. Having a firearm visible made you more of a target. The drug/gang thing is more of an issue on the Cape - though it is prevalent all over. Racial tension? Hmm, well i'm not sure i'd say that - but some people may well see it that way. It's about a huge imbalance of haves and have-nots. Crime is ingrained in the culture now. I'm unsure if it can be fixed any time soon (hence why I no longer live there). Guns are certainly not going to fix what is wrong with South Africa.

 

I lived in the US too, and I never came across any gun violence or anything like that. I would agree that the US is as peaceful as the UK. I'm not talking statistically - but how I perceived it when I lived there, and my numerous visits today. On the other hand, hard statistics - such as homicide by firearm - do speak for themselves.

 

I would submit that most criminals in the UK are _not_ armed with a firearm. The risks are just too high if caught, and they are highly unlikely to be accosted by someone with a firearm. The exception here of course is criminal-on-criminal violence (or gang-on-gang). Sure some criminals use them - but I think it is the minority. If more Brits were armed, we'd have more British homicides by firearm. Being armed means that your assailant is more likely to come 'prepared' for what he wants to do. An arms race of sorts.

[gazzthompson]

Being armed means that your assailant is more likely to come 'prepared' for what he wants to do. An arms race of sorts.

 

Or he won't come at all, as the risk is too great. There always has been an "arms race", but we can't participate and criminals win it by simply carrying a knife screwdriver or whatever.

Edited February 13, 2013 by gazzthompson

[ordnance]

I prefer living in a society without handguns

Whys that. ?

 

I really do feel for sportsmen who can no longer own a handgun for their sport - but sometimes the needs of society outweigh the needs of the few.

 

 

How does it help society that there is no handguns. ?

Edited February 13, 2013 by ordnance

[aris]

 

Whys that. ?

 

How does it help society that there is no handguns. ?

 

Because I've experienced the alternative.

 

Wats your point?

[ordnance]

Because I've experienced the alternative.

 

Wats your point

That doesn't answer my question. I am wondering why you think society is safer without handguns, and why you feel Quote. really do feel for sportsmen who can no longer own a handgun for their sport - but sometimes the needs of society outweigh the needs of the few.

 

PS As i remember the last mass shooting in the uk was carried out with a shotgun and a .22 rifle. Would society be safer without them as well.

[aris]

In my opinion, It is a matter of equilibrium. I think I ave already explained it - an intruder is less likely to come tooed up with a gun if he doesn't expect to be confronted with one. Equally the police who are unarmed.

[gazzthompson]

I don't play into the "arms race" argument.

 

As I already stated, worst case is your equal to any attacker. Currently if somebody is bigger, has friends, has a knife or any other weapon you have very little to no chance to defend yourself. The arms race is already happening, we just can't take part and criminals win most of the time.

[aris]

Fair enough - we agree to disagree :-)

[gazzthompson]

agree !

[ordnance]

I think I ave already explained it - an intruder is less likely to come tooed up with a gun if he doesn't expect to be confronted with one. Equally the police who are unarmed

 

Fair enough. I would disagree i would think a intruder is less likely to come at all if they thought the occupant was armed. As for the police one of the two police officers that was murder last year was able the fire her taser which is one shot. So being unarmed didn't stop their murder coming armed. If she had being armed she might of had a chance. The part about civilians having handguns for target shooting i have a few and don't think its more of a danger to society than any other firearm.

Edited February 13, 2013 by ordnance

[wildrover77]

In my opinion, It is a matter of equilibrium. I think I ave already explained it - an intruder is less likely to come tooed up with a gun if he doesn't expect to be confronted with one. Equally the police who are unarmed.

 

It could be my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese but that opinion would not count for much. I am more interested in fact. Sadly to much opinion is considered to be fact in our modern world.

[aris]

 

 

It could be my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese but that opinion would not count for much. I am more interested in fact. Sadly to much opinion is considered to be fact in our modern world.

 

The only 'facts' you have provided are someone elses opinion written in a book.

[Steppenwolf]

I don't play into the "arms race" argument.

 

As I already stated, worst case is your equal to any attacker. Currently if somebody is bigger, has friends, has a knife or any other weapon you have very little to no chance to defend yourself. The arms race is already happening, we just can't take part and criminals win most of the time.

 

This is what I mean. Criminals already outgun/outknife/outtool us in Britain since we are not allowed to carry anything for self-defence we will get arrested for offensive weapon. So the worst case scenario under your "arms race", everyone has a gun so everyone has an equal chance of getting shot etc, that includes the criminals. It is statistically more dangerous now in the Uk for law abiding people since the criminal has the upper hand.

[wildrover77]

The only 'facts' you have provided are someone elses opinion written in a book.

 

Wrong those books are not opinions, especially the one I mentioned as being hard work, which has peer reviewed papers included. I suggest you read them before you quote any more of your opinions.

[Mr_Logic]

Aris - you are talking rubbish I'm afraid, regarding the living in a society without handguns. What you have actually experienced is a relatively lawful society vs a relatively lawless society.

 

People without guns can still be lawless (and frequently are) and people with guns can be lawful (and most of them are).

 

Gun control - banning this or that firearm - makes no difference to anything.

 

In our society in UK, banning handguns has not reduced crime one iota - look at the statistics which I think have been published on this board already (Google Gun crime statistics UK otherwise). They show a reduction in gun crime since 2005, but handguns were banned 8 years before. Banning handguns made no difference because it was not those handguns which made their way into the criminal underworld.

 

What has likely made a difference is the violent crime reduction Act, which specified restrictions on items easily used to create a firearm. Namely blank firers - greater restrictions and the daft colour, sale of primers without FAC and replica weapons. These are measures which make far more sense. In our already-restricted world, they make sense.

 

People have said on this forum - banning handguns and banning SLRs has 'worked'. This is utter tosh. Point and say 'how many massacres with pistols and SLRs since'. Great. Pointless - they're banned. How many massacres, full stop.... that's different.

 

Since the massacres haven't been prevented, what was the point?

 

Examine the crimes themselves - Hungerford - the only ARV was on traning in another area that day and this prolonged the massacre. IIRC they also knew Ryan was a tad strange. Dunblane - police repeatedly failed to heed very clear warnings that the pscyho was just that.

 

Now - how was either crime the fault of legitimate gun owners? I support efforts to vet people - it makes sense. But please do not tell me banning guns can ever work. It has been proven not to by continued massacres and gun crime since every ban! (and remember, before Hungerford the type of weapons used were rare ANYWAY!)