Switzerland issues every adult a gun and trains them how to use it: Switzerland has lowest gun-relat

[jon_berzerk]

bs

the form has to be filled out from any and all FFL no matter

where they sell the gun asshole

besides that it is illegal for him to have one

That's odd. My son-in-law and I went to a gun show in Louisiana 7 years ago, and he bought a sniper rifle with nothing but cash in hand. No form, whatsoever. He did the same thing with a transaction on Craigslist for a 1911. In fact, John Hinkley can do the same, and the person who sells him the gun is not even breaking the law, as long as he is not a licensed firearm dealer.

In short, you tried to plow a path around my statement, but got stuck in the ditch for your efforts.

yeah im sure he did --LOL

"sniper rifle" ta boot

what a jackass

--LOL

Well, now, Jon, what would you call a rifle and scope combination that has a kill range that is so far that there is not a single public rifle range in Louisiana that is long enough to sight it?

a hunting/target rifle asshole

is your son-in-law a shady criminal buying firearms like that

looks like it

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if his high school had voted on the "senior most likely to become a political assassin", he would have won it hands down.

I can not help but mention that he has absolutely no interest in hunting, but he is keeping the NRA is business single handedly buying their bumper stickers.

Thank god my only relationship with him was that he married my x-wife's daughter.

sounds like he is a criminal

making you are an accessory to a crime

 

[bucs90]

EXCELLENT thread.

It's why Utah, Connecticut, Montana and Belgium all have drastically different gun laws....but....almost identical rates of gun violence.

America's unique issue is its diversity. Amongst the 50 states there are so many different pockets of various cultures. Some can handle gun ownership. Some cant.
Which is why this should be a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE.

 

[Vandalshandle]

That's odd. My son-in-law and I went to a gun show in Louisiana 7 years ago, and he bought a sniper rifle with nothing but cash in hand. No form, whatsoever. He did the same thing with a transaction on Craigslist for a 1911. In fact, John Hinkley can do the same, and the person who sells him the gun is not even breaking the law, as long as he is not a licensed firearm dealer.

In short, you tried to plow a path around my statement, but got stuck in the ditch for your efforts.

yeah im sure he did --LOL

"sniper rifle" ta boot

what a jackass

--LOL

Well, now, Jon, what would you call a rifle and scope combination that has a kill range that is so far that there is not a single public rifle range in Louisiana that is long enough to sight it?

a hunting/target rifle asshole

is your son-in-law a shady criminal buying firearms like that

looks like it

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if his high school had voted on the "senior most likely to become a political assassin", he would have won it hands down.

I can not help but mention that he has absolutely no interest in hunting, but he is keeping the NRA is business single handedly buying their bumper stickers.

Thank god my only relationship with him was that he married my x-wife's daughter.

sounds like he is a criminal

making you are an accessory to a crime

No, he is just your garden variety Southern redneck extremist that one would find fills up most Trump rallies. Lives off of his wife's earnings, has 8 children by 7 different women, only 3 of whom he married, and feeling incredibly superior to all other races in Louisiana.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, it just naturally follows that if every American was packing a gun every day, there would be virtually no gun deaths.

Rrrrrrriiiiight........

No one is claiming that.

BUt you lefties are arguing that the problem driving our high murder rate is easy availability of guns.

Switzerland proves that that is not the case.

Having to join the national guard and train for months is easy access compared to the US? Are you mad?

Are you dishonest?

Regardless of how the guns got into society, they are now there, everywhere and easily available to most of the population one way or another.


You lefties argue that the problem driving our high murder rate is easy availability of guns.

Switzerland proves that that is not the case.

What's easy about joining the military?

I already addressed that point above.

By ignoring my response and simply repeating your original position, you are engaged in the dishonest Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion in the propaganda form.


Your argument is invalid.


You have in effect admitted that you know that you cannot defend your argument on it's merits.

My original position was not refuted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

EXCELLENT thread.

It's why Utah, Connecticut, Montana and Belgium all have drastically different gun laws....but....almost identical rates of gun violence.

America's unique issue is its diversity. Amongst the 50 states there are so many different pockets of various cultures. Some can handle gun ownership. Some cant.
Which is why this should be a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE.

So you would allow a state to ban private ownership of guns? Are you sure about that ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, just for the record, back to the OP, no, Switzerland does not issue every adult a gun.

 

[g5000]

Gun Ownership in Switzerland

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (or age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.

This has been debunked numerous times on this forum.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I love these threads. So full of ripe bullshit that's easily exposed with a few minutes of research.

To the OP (NOLA Gator ): Would you prefer that our gun laws matched those of Switzerland?


(I'd suggest actually doing some research before answering)

 

[g5000]

The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted.

Gun politics in Switzerland

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted.

Gun politics in Switzerland

Nor are carry permits issued without proving an express need for one.

Switzerland has stricter gun laws than at least 75% of this country, if not all of it.

 

[HappyJoy]

Singapore has very little gun crime and very little gun ownership and very strict gun laws.

So, what makes it different from all the cities with strict gun laws and lots of gun crime?

Which American city has gun laws as strict as Singapore?

Narnia? No, wait, Oz?

 

[2aguy]

11 F of the 4473 form disagrees with the cousins right to process a firearm

...a form that he does not have to fill out at a gun show, because you and the NRA say that having to prove that one can legally buy a guy infringes on the rights of those who legally can buy a gun.

bs

the form has to be filled out from any and all FFL no matter

where they sell the gun asshole

besides that it is illegal for him to have one

That's odd. My son-in-law and I went to a gun show in Louisiana 7 years ago, and he bought a sniper rifle with nothing but cash in hand. No form, whatsoever. He did the same thing with a transaction on Craigslist for a 1911. In fact, John Hinkley can do the same, and the person who sells him the gun is not even breaking the law, as long as he is not a licensed firearm dealer.

In short, you tried to plow a path around my statement, but got stuck in the ditch for your efforts.

yeah im sure he did --LOL

"sniper rifle" ta boot

what a jackass

--LOL

Well, now, Jon, what would you call a rifle and scope combination that has a kill range that is so far that there is not a single public rifle range in Louisiana that is long enough to sight it?

A really nice gun.

 

[2aguy]

The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted.

Gun politics in Switzerland

Nor are carry permits issued without proving an express need for one.

Switzerland has stricter gun laws than at least 75% of this country, if not all of it.

And they didn't stop the mass shooting mentioned in the article......

 

[Correll]

No one is claiming that.

BUt you lefties are arguing that the problem driving our high murder rate is easy availability of guns.

Switzerland proves that that is not the case.

Having to join the national guard and train for months is easy access compared to the US? Are you mad?

Are you dishonest?

Regardless of how the guns got into society, they are now there, everywhere and easily available to most of the population one way or another.


You lefties argue that the problem driving our high murder rate is easy availability of guns.

Switzerland proves that that is not the case.

What's easy about joining the military?

I already addressed that point above.

By ignoring my response and simply repeating your original position, you are engaged in the dishonest Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion in the propaganda form.


Your argument is invalid.


You have in effect admitted that you know that you cannot defend your argument on it's merits.

My original position was not refuted.

I did not claim it was "refuted".

I said it was "addressed".

By ignoring that, and simply repeating your original position, you are engaged in the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion as a form of propaganda.


Thus, your argument is invalid.


You have in effect admitted that you know that you cannot defend your argument on it's merits.

 

[Correll]

I love these threads. So full of ripe bullshit that's easily exposed with a few minutes of research.

To the OP (NOLA Gator ): Would you prefer that our gun laws matched those of Switzerland?


(I'd suggest actually doing some research before answering)

The point of the op, obviously, is that the High availability of guns combined with low gun violence is strong evidence that the liberal claim that guns cause gun violence is wrong.


Not that we should adopt Switzerland's gun laws.


I can see why you would want to confuse the issue. As you don't have a honest rebuttal.

 

[2aguy]

I love these threads. So full of ripe bullshit that's easily exposed with a few minutes of research.

To the OP (NOLA Gator ): Would you prefer that our gun laws matched those of Switzerland?


(I'd suggest actually doing some research before answering)

The point of the op, obviously, is that the High availability of guns combined with low gun violence is strong evidence that the liberal claim that guns cause gun violence is wrong.


Not that we should adopt Switzerland's gun laws.


I can see why you would want to confuse the issue. As you don't have a honest rebuttal.

Having debated this issue for several years now......it is obvious that anti-gunners will not tell the truth, will deny actual statistics and will refuse to acknowledge actual research that shows what they claim is wrong....

 

[Kondor3]

"Switzerland issues every adult a gun and trains them how to use it: Switzerland has lowest gun-relat"

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

Switzerland can't be compared to other countries, the United States in particular.

True.

Switzerland doesn't have multiple cesspools containing millions of feral inner-city Blacks and Hispanics blowing each other's brains out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Having to join the national guard and train for months is easy access compared to the US? Are you mad?

Are you dishonest?

Regardless of how the guns got into society, they are now there, everywhere and easily available to most of the population one way or another.


You lefties argue that the problem driving our high murder rate is easy availability of guns.

Switzerland proves that that is not the case.

What's easy about joining the military?

I already addressed that point above.

By ignoring my response and simply repeating your original position, you are engaged in the dishonest Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion in the propaganda form.


Your argument is invalid.


You have in effect admitted that you know that you cannot defend your argument on it's merits.

My original position was not refuted.

I did not claim it was "refuted".

I said it was "addressed".

By ignoring that, and simply repeating your original position, you are engaged in the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion as a form of propaganda.


Thus, your argument is invalid.


You have in effect admitted that you know that you cannot defend your argument on it's merits.

The number one issue on gun control is currently whether to close the background check loopholes. You oppose that.
Closing the background check loopholes would in fact make our system more like Switzerland. You are arguing for Switzerland as your model for gun rights and gun control,

while at the same time you oppose the Swiss model.

 

[Correll]

Are you dishonest?

Regardless of how the guns got into society, they are now there, everywhere and easily available to most of the population one way or another.


You lefties argue that the problem driving our high murder rate is easy availability of guns.

Switzerland proves that that is not the case.

What's easy about joining the military?

I already addressed that point above.

By ignoring my response and simply repeating your original position, you are engaged in the dishonest Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion in the propaganda form.


Your argument is invalid.


You have in effect admitted that you know that you cannot defend your argument on it's merits.

My original position was not refuted.

I did not claim it was "refuted".

I said it was "addressed".

By ignoring that, and simply repeating your original position, you are engaged in the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion as a form of propaganda.


Thus, your argument is invalid.


You have in effect admitted that you know that you cannot defend your argument on it's merits.

The number one issue on gun control is currently whether to close the background check loopholes. You oppose that.
Closing the background check loopholes would in fact make our system more like Switzerland. You are arguing for Switzerland as your model for gun rights and gun control,

while at the same time you oppose the Swiss model.

That is a very, very nuanced argument.

And it is not true. No one is arguing for Switzerland as our "model for gun rights or gun control".


You lefties argue that the problem driving our high murder rate is easy availability of guns.

Switzerland proves that that is not the case.


I understand why you desperately want to change the subject.


Because you can't refute my point.

 

[2aguy]

Are you dishonest?

Regardless of how the guns got into society, they are now there, everywhere and easily available to most of the population one way or another.


You lefties argue that the problem driving our high murder rate is easy availability of guns.

Switzerland proves that that is not the case.

What's easy about joining the military?

I already addressed that point above.

By ignoring my response and simply repeating your original position, you are engaged in the dishonest Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion in the propaganda form.


Your argument is invalid.


You have in effect admitted that you know that you cannot defend your argument on it's merits.

My original position was not refuted.

I did not claim it was "refuted".

I said it was "addressed".

By ignoring that, and simply repeating your original position, you are engaged in the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion as a form of propaganda.


Thus, your argument is invalid.


You have in effect admitted that you know that you cannot defend your argument on it's merits.

The number one issue on gun control is currently whether to close the background check loopholes. You oppose that.
Closing the background check loopholes would in fact make our system more like Switzerland. You are arguing for Switzerland as your model for gun rights and gun control,

while at the same time you oppose the Swiss model.

There are no loopholes. Selling private property is not a loophole....all licensed gun dealers no matter where they are have to do a background check, even at gun shows or flea markets.

And you have yet to explain how you would keep straw buyers from buying guns even through private sales....