Knife Control?

[Guest]

OK, I will just throw one thing into this, I KNOW the serial numbers of all weapons that I own, and if one of those weapons is stolen. I WILL immediately call the police with that serial number and type of weapon.

The government has NO need to know what guns I own, until that weapon leaves my possession in an illegal way. Registration by the government is ILLEGAL in this country. once someone buys a firearm, the government is REQUIRED by law to destroy the paperwork collected on that purchase within 6 months!!

So don't go flapping your mouths about me being irresponsible, because I'm not!! I am a legal, and responsible gunowner.

And with the attitude by Paddy there, you would think that we had shoot outs on every corner, every day!! geez, Paddy the press sensationalize any and all gun crimes they can report on. I have NEVER heard, nor seen a shootout in person, EVER!! and I travel VERY extensively, you are more likely by many, many multipliers to be hit by a car in this country then to be assaulted with a gun!!

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Põdi]

Hehe, thought I would get a bit of a mauling, but never mind. Like I said, it was an observation from overseas and I was typing as I was thinking, so it probably sounded a bit rambling. Jaguar, from your posts and your demeanour (sp?) you are obviously a responsible gun-owner, but how many people are not? That is the question. Also, the media can only report and sensationalise shooting incidents which actually happen and from what I see, it occurs more ofetn in the US, per capita, than any other country. I think what I was tryng to say is that your constitution facilitated a gun culture (I was going to say created, but that is too strong) which is why you have this ongoing debate now. Then again, you have a relatively young democracy, maybe it still needs time to mature, I don't know. And aramike, I'm all for freedom of speech, religion etc and the British law is all for it, but we don't going around shoving it in peoples' faces when it suits us. Living in Switzerland as a foreigner, I actually have fewer rights than most, but it was my choice and to be honest I couldn't give a toss anyway. I can't vote here and to be honest, with the amount of referenda we have here, I'd be sick of it anyway. It's late and I've drunk a bottle of very nice red wine so I'm rambling again. What's the weather like? We lost the cricket but won the rugby, life goes on.

TTFN

Paddy

[aramike]

Paddy, who said anything about shoving freedom of speech in anyone's face?

Did the point totally go over your head?

Also, just one cannot remove the rights of people as a response to those who abuse those rights. That is called punishing the innocent, and is what our constitution stands for.

[Põdi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aramike:

That is called punishing the innocent, and is what our constitution stands for.

---

Really? I thought it was meant to protect the innocent.

There you go again, throwing your constitution around. Have you ever thought it might be outdated and, well, flawed?

[Guest]

quote:

---

There you go again, throwing your constitution around. Have you ever thought it

might be outdated and, well, flawed?

---

Well, let's see, it's worked for over 200 years, and we still have more freedom then you do, hmm, Flawed? I don't think so. But thanks for your constructive criticizm!! lol

[Põdi]

Your welcome

You know, I actually followed a similar thread in another forum once (without participating) and it really got quite nasty and abusive before being closed by the admin. I'm glad to say this one is rather civilized, even we don't agree on anything.

Just one point, what do mean when you say you have more freedom than we do? In what way?

[Põdi]

Actually, I'm just thinking about what happens here in Switzerland. They have National Service for all men (and some women) between the ages of 18 and 40 (I think). You do 17 weeks basic training, then a specific number of weeks per year in barracks. You keep your semi-automatic weapon at home (usually under the bed , from the people I know) and you MUST attend range practice once a month throughout the year.

It's quite amusing seeing guys completely kitted out getting on a train full of commuters in the mornings. Switzerland can assemble a standing army of something like 500 000 fully-armed men within 24hrs or so. Why anyone would want to invade I have no idea, everyone has WAY too much money invested here. There is also nothing worse than getting stuck behind a tank or half-track on a country lane with no option to overtake! Not sure if all my facts are entirely correct (as usual) but Starfighter may be able to put me right.

[Guest]

In Switzerland, All men between the ages of 18 and I believe it is 45 serve in the military. The rifle you were talking about is a Semi and fully automatic rifle. All Men of age must be trained and keep these at home.

And you wonder why your crime rate is low?

All men are WELL trained in the use of that weapon and are EXPERT rifleman!!

Germany threatened Switzerland once during world War II, not sure if this is a legend or fact, but this is what I heard. The German general asked the Swiss General, " You have 250,000 men, and I can have 2 brigades or 7 times that many here, what could you do?" the Swiss General Replied, "I will give each of my men 7 bullets." The German general shook his head and walked away. Germany NEVER invaded Switzerland.

You have the militia from HELL, It is all the able bodied men in the country, supplied with weapons by the government, and WELL trained!!!

Any full time army would think twice before going up against it.

This is also another reason why in the US we woul NEVER be invaded from without. The full time Army would never get a chance to fire a shot, because the civilians with guns, such as my self would descend on the landing zone and kill as many invaders as possible, A full time army of say 100,000 would not have a chance against say 2 1/2 million armed civilians!!

Our Constitution works and works well, as long as it isn't perverted to mean something that it never said, which is happening with alarming frequency with activist judges!! Otherwise, I Like it JUST FINE!! Then again, You don't and have not lived here, you must think it's right out of the wild wild west or something, but I assure you, it's not!! lol

Time to get back to work, will write more later if I have time!!

[aramike]

quote:

---

Really? I thought it was meant to protect the innocent.

---

Yes, that what it is for. You only read the words I wrote, not what I responded to. Shame on you for taking my words out of context.

quote:

---

There you go again, throwing your constitution around. Have you ever thought it might be outdated and, well, flawed?

---

So "protecting the innocent" is flawed? Freedom of speech is flawed? Freedom of religion is flawed? Freedom of press is flawed? The right to be free of governmental siezures is flawed? The right to an impartial jury is flawed? The right ot be free of excessive punishment is flawed?

Or, is only the right to bear arms flawed?

Obviously you know nothing about the Constitution. Those rights are NOT flawed. Those rights are things EVERY person should have. What YOU want to do is pick and choose what rights are proper. That is NOT your RIGHT.

[Põdi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aramike:

Or, is only the right to bear arms flawed?

---

In my opinion yes.

I actually thought you'd typed the bit about protecting the innocent incorrectly, which is why I questioned it. Sorry if I sounded a little sarcastic, it wasn't meant that way.

And Jaguar, I've never actually heard that story about the Swiss General, but knowing Swiss logic and directness, there's probably some truth in it. I have an idea that the Swiss plan if invaded was to retreat to the high mountains and conduct a guerilla war from there. This would have been a huge burden on the German war effort, and probably not worth the bother. Oh, that and the fact the Germans had an awful lot of stolen gold nice and secure in Swiss bank vaults . Now ask yourself why the Swiss economy is so strong and stable. As to the standard of the current Swiss army, I couldn't tell you. One of my friends who came back to Switzerland after growing up in the States said that all he learnt in the Swiss army was how to smoke dope and gamble. The next Swiss army reform will probably be the abolition of national service in favour of a smaller, full-time professional army.

Also, the reason the crime rate here in Switzerland is so low is that the Swiss just aren't like that. Even non-violent crime is low (or under-reported). So every able-bodied man having a weapon in the house is not a deterent. I don't think they're allowed to keep ammunition at home anyway (though I'm not sure of that).

They tend to blame most crime on foreigners as well.

[Starfighter08]

Just a few points about our army (btw in Switz army is also used as synonym for the whole military, because it consists of one army).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Gregory:

Actually, I'm just thinking about what happens here in Switzerland. They have National Service for all men (and some women) between the ages of 18 and 40 (I think).

---

It's from 20 close to 40 (reforms are in the making so service will probably end earlier in the future).

quote:

---

You do 17 weeks basic training, then a specific number of weeks per year in barracks.

---

It's 15 now (will change too I think. Maybe a possibility to serve all the 300 days you have to at once). It's either 2 weeks a year for airforce or 3 weeks every other year for army.

quote:

---

You keep your semi-automatic weapon at home (usually under the bed , from the people I know) and you MUST attend range practice once a month throughout the year.

---

Our assault rifle is semi-automatic and automatic. You must attend range once a year (have been 2 times so far and got a honorable mention every time ).

quote:

---

It's quite amusing seeing guys completely kitted out getting on a train full of commuters in the mornings. Switzerland can assemble a standing army of something like 500 000 fully-armed men within 24hrs or so. Why anyone would want to invade I have no idea, everyone has WAY too much money invested here. There is also nothing worse than getting stuck behind a tank or half-track on a country lane with no option to overtake! Not sure if all my facts are entirely correct (as usual) but Starfighter may be able to put me right.

---

It's not quite amusing to be one of them. Grrr you remembered me that this year's "Repetition course" will be in november.

Agree on the other things stated.

[Guest]

I have to admit, it's VERY nice to have such an international type of forum!! Makes things VERY interesting and I'm learning all kinds of things!!

[Starfighter08]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jaguar:

And you wonder why your crime rate is low?

---

We don't use it to prevent crimes. Btw if for example somebody enters our house armed with a knife and I shoot him, I'll be in quite some trouble. It's called something like excessive self-defense.

quote:

---

All men are WELL trained in the use of that weapon and are EXPERT rifleman!!

---

Expert is a little bit too much, but thanks.

quote:

---

Germany threatened Switzerland once during world War II, not sure if this is a legend or fact, but this is what I heard. The German general asked the Swiss General, " You have 250,000 men, and I can have 2 brigades or 7 times that many here, what could you do?" the Swiss General Replied, "I will give each of my men 7 bullets." The German general shook his head and walked away. Germany NEVER invaded Switzerland.

---

They had said forces parked close to the border but didn't use them. Btw don't know wheter this discussion took really place. But it shows the will to defend the country. The alps were built into fortresses and even the signs on the roads would have been removed not to let the enemy know where he is.

quote:

---

You have the militia from HELL, It is all the able bodied men in the country, supplied with weapons by the government, and WELL trained!!!

Any full time army would think twice before going up against it.

---

I hope nobody will try it (very unlikely, I mean we are surrounded by friendly nations). I think the slogan used by supporters of the military when we had to vote if the army should be abolished is still true: "Better to have an army and not need it than needing an army but not having it". Btw able bodied doesn't apply to me but as Sun tsu has it, an able general can use every one, not just the bold and strong soldiers.

[aramike]

quote:

---

In my opinion yes.

---

But see, THAT is why we have a Constitution - your opinions should NOT encroach MY rights. The Constitution guards that. I find it odd that you can call the Constitution flawed when you only disagree with one ammendment. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean that it is wrong.

quote:

---

I actually thought you'd typed the bit about protecting the innocent incorrectly, which is why I questioned it. Sorry if I sounded a little sarcastic, it wasn't meant that way.

---

No problem. I probably would have said the same thing. Just please try to read what's being responded to.

That's why I use quotes - it makes for better fluidity. It also assures that I respond to EVERYTHING someone says, rather than picking and choosing. It's fair.

quote:

---

Also, the reason the crime rate here in Switzerland is so low is that the Swiss just aren't like that. Even non-violent crime is low (or under-reported). So every able-bodied man having a weapon in the house is not a deterent.

---

Whoa - the nation's crime is low, people can keep weapons in homes, and you're suggesting that it isn't a deterrant?

I don't buy that.

[Guest]

Weapons in the home are a MAJOR deterrent to crime, I can provide statistics to PROVE that if you want, but whenever guns are banned or are heavily regulated, such as storage requirements etc, the crime rate for that area ALWAYS goes up.

I think that indeed the assault rifles in every home with a male of age is a MAJOR deterrent to crime, and yes, foreigners would be the only ones dumb enough to commit a crime in a country like that!! lol

[Starfighter08]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy Gregory:

I have an idea that the Swiss plan if invaded was to retreat to the high mountains and conduct a guerilla war from there. This would have been a huge burden on the German war effort, and probably not worth the bother.

---

Yep, and as a means of last resort the railway tunnel through the alps would have been destroyed, disconnecting Germany and Italy (getting around the alps takes quite some time).

quote:

---

Oh, that and the fact the Germans had an awful lot of stolen gold nice and secure in Swiss bank vaults . Now ask yourself why the Swiss economy is so strong and stable.

---

When WWII ended Europe had to be rebuilt and the swiss industry was up and running where others had sustained quite some damage. It has also to do with political and social stability.

quote:

---

As to the standard of the current Swiss army, I couldn't tell you. One of my friends who came back to Switzerland after growing up in the States said that all he learnt in the Swiss army was how to smoke dope and gamble.

---

Valid point, although it depends on which branch you serve (and of course the personality of the recruit).

quote:

---

The next Swiss army reform will probably be the abolition of national service in favour of a smaller, full-time professional army.

---

Don't quite think so. That idea has not many supporters.

quote:

---

Also, the reason the crime rate here in Switzerland is so low is that the Swiss just aren't like that. Even non-violent crime is low (or under-reported). So every able-bodied man having a weapon in the house is not a deterent. I don't think they're allowed to keep ammunition at home anyway (though I'm not sure of that).

They tend to blame most crime on foreigners as well.

---

Yes people can apply for help from the gov't if thyey're poor. We can keep the ammo but it's sealed in a box (not for use unless called to arms in times of war). Yes we tend to blame the foreigners for most of crime because if there's a shooting (seldom) or people with knifes then there's almost certain a foreigner (especially those who seek asylum) involved. Last but not least I can't deny that we might be a bit xenophobes.

[aramike]

quote:

---

Yes people can apply for help from the gov't if thyey're poor. We can keep the ammo but it's sealed in a box (not for use unless called to arms in times of war). Yes we tend to blame the foreigners for most of crime because if there's a shooting (seldom) or people with knifes then there's almost certain a foreigner (especially those who seek asylum) involved. Last but not least I can't deny that we might be a bit xenophobes.

---

Interesting... you have all these weapons READILY available but there aren't many shootings at all. The fact that WE have weapons available is being blamed for shootings...

Apparently, the fact that weapons are available isn't the problem.

[Guest Shingen]

I take Aikijutsu (which is a more traditional form of Aikido where training isn't based on 'belts' and 'trophies', but of warfare and survival of an actual combat situation), anyway, I'm quite certain my sensei(teacher) could very easily kill anyone he wanted with very little effort.

Because the is a chance that he could use this tool (ie: training) to kill, and it's origins were firmly rooted in the killing of people, (see Martial Arts) should all forms of martial arts be banned?

I could name off several martial arts forms that were originally created to kill people. (ie: PROTECT!) I was just wondering if all you liberal types think that this should also be banned?

Martial Arts teach a MULTITUDE of things, but, alas it DOES teach one to kill. (At least the I one I train in does)

It seems to me that you all are trying to take the danger out of life. I'm afraid that this is quite impossible.

I for one, don't trust guns or knifes, though, I FIRMLY believe in my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to bare them! The problem with reling on guns and such is, what do you do if you don't HAVE one? What happens if you run out of ammo before the OTHER guy does?

anyway... just some thoughts.

[Steve Schacher]

When debating whether the Constitution is outdated and flawed, it is wrong to focus only on the Bill Of Rights.

One has to look at all the articles and ask whether the general concept of three co-equal branches consisting of Executive, Legislative, and Judicial structures, with all the rules for elections and appointments, and oversight responsibilites are also outdated and flawed.

One must also remember that the Constitution was meant to be a "limited powers" document, meaning that the Federal government was authorized to do only what was explicitly written into the Constitution, and anything not expicitly written into the Constitution was reserved to the States, and to the people.

The Bill Of Rights was not meant to be an exhaustive list of the rights of individuals to be protected from the Federal government. The Ninth Amendment says that there are other rights that belong to individuals that are not enumerated in the prior eight amendments. The Tenth Amendment says that anything not explicitly written into the Articles of the Constitution belong to the States, and to the people.

The Constitution has to be taken as a tapestry, with everything there to support or balance against something else. What is it, exactly, that seems outdated and flawed?

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Apparently, the fact that weapons are available isn't the problem.

---

Read this column by Walter Williams, entitled Kids And Guns. It talks about shootings vs. the availability of guns.

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Steve Schacher ]

[Commander ZIX]

quote:

---

Orriginnaly posted by Paddy Gregory:

There you go again, throwing your constitution around. Have you ever thought it might be outdated and, well, flawed?

---

That's what the job of the supreme court and the rest of the court system is. They are there to determine what the US constitution means and how it works in today's world.

[Akira]

This is sooo funny. If you want a first hand understanding of what removing guns from civilians can do... look at Australia. I just finished watching a report on their disarming of normal citizens.

Crime rates skyrocketed. Especially in locations farther from the cities where there was NO chance of police assistance. Not that the police assisted those in the city (it would be impossible... too many people too few police).

Also, you need to look at why the right to bear arms was included in the US constitution/declaration of Ind. It was to ensure that the government would never be able to deny a citizen's right to defend himself, family, property, home, state, or country.

Without the basic right to defend yourself, injustice reigns supreme. There are millions of incedents in the US, Brit-land, and all other countries where laws have been so twisted that the victim was more severely punished for the crime than the criminal.

Also, it's not the guns in the hands of the normal law-abiding citizen that cause all the harm. It's the weapon (any kind) in the hand of the criminal/insane that is dangerous. Just the fact that these people live outside the law means that creating laws to control crime is ludicrous.

Again, I point to Australia. Taking away citizen's right to bear arms in defense has opened to floodgates for criminals to use the same banned weapon to commit their crime.

But wait, it's illegal... But wait, anything can be obtained if you want it enough. So, how do anti-weapon laws help.

They don't help the normal person one bit. However, they are a boon to governments.

With anti-weapon laws (including anti-martial arts i.e. china) a government reverts to the MIGHT MAKES RIGHT principle.

Anti-weapon laws ONLY help governments. It ensures that, no matter how lawful or unlawful, the gov. doesn't have to worry about life threatening retribution. Sure, appeals can be made. Complaints lodged. But, like folks that have goods seized as suspected drug runners, red tape can and will bury you FOREVER.

Without the right to lethally defend yourself, the government has the abillity to do WHATEVER they want. You can be forced from your home; your country; your life; without ANY recourse. Welcome to the holocaust. Germans did it to Jews, Americans did it to Japs... etc. etc.

The reason that we (US) have our freedoms plainly spelled out is so that each individual freedom has another freedom to support it. You take away the right to bear arms and you weaken another freedom.

For instance, take away arms. Crime rate goes through the roof. The only way to protect yourself is to give qaurter to government officials that can protect you. Boom, another freedom (no quarter) is gone. So, you no longer have the right to deny the government entry into your home. Your privacy is now gone (it already is, just many of you don't know it), boom, your right to free speech is gone. Government officials now censor the press for their safety. You can't voice your opinions openly because now it's enciting riots (vietnam era) and somehow you now live in a police state with a leader that has a small black mustache cropped to the width of his nose.

You see, US freedoms, ALL OF THEM, are necessary. Any one of those freedoms taken away weakens the others.

If you believe that banning weapons works, I suggest you look at PROHIBITION. We tried to ban alchohol. Who bennifited? Not the citizens. Only criminals and the government. Alchohol was still in supply to those that wanted it just like guns will still be avail. to those that want them.

Another example, the ban on narcotics. Has the war on drugs done anything to curtail the availabillity of substances to those that want them. NO. But it's made organizations rich. It's also given government agencies the right to deny citizens their rights.

But hey, banning weapons wouldn't be the same as alchohol or drugs. Of coarse, more deaths have been atributed to substance abuse than weapon abuse...

I just wish more people would open their eyes to the facts and stop towing the popular line. If you don't like guns, fine. That doesn't make you any less of a person. However, the moment you impose your dislike of guns on others is the exact same moment that you place yourself on equal standing with ALL the Stalins, Hittlers, and Caligulas.

There is only one true law: Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

That means treat people the way YOU want to be treated.

So, if you want to take away MY freedoms, then you should completely expect that I will soon take your life because life without freedom is not worth living and I wouldn't want live like that. Would you?

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

Without the right to lethally defend yourself, the government has the ability to do WHATEVER they want. You can be forced from your home;

---

If you want additional proof of this, just look at the situation with the McGuckin family in Idaho -- this was a land grab, as simple as that. All of the mainstream media news was lies passed along from the local good-old-boy county government.

I'll leave it to you hackers out there to dig up what the McGuckin story is (if you don't already know).

Post your findings here, with relevant Constitutional ramifications.

[Põdi]

Just throwing a search into Yahoo gave me

this

Then again I also got this

amongst others of course. These are just 2 I pulled at random. It all depends what your agenda is as to which statistics you believe.

I'm afraid it's all a case of Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee.

But it's interesting to talk about it.

Another talking point: if the US constitution contained a paragragh which stated that every US citizen should have free and unfettered access to narcotic drugs, what would be the situation now?

Oops, bad link, which is why:

[ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: Paddy Gregory ]

[Tyrrian]

Well I think I will add my own two cents worth, for what it is worth. I come from England, home to 60 million people. The only 'gun' that you can legitimately have in the UK is a Shotgun. These are heavily controlled by the police, and its normal to only find farmers with them.

Violent crime sadly is still on the increase in the UK since hte banning of Guns, but the use of guns within these crims has reduced dramatically. A shooting in the UK is now generall a rare occasion and is only generally found when rival crime factions take each other out and I really couldn't care about that.

The gun was never really a major part of the British culture as such very few people were actually bothered when they were banned. The majority of the country agreed anyway. It is therefore difficult to compare the USA with any other country as they have enshrined the right to bare arms in their constitution. THe UK has no such constitution.

The only issue I can really see with Gun Control or lack of it, is the ease of which people who are not responsible can get their hands on Guns. From a UK perspective it seems rediculously easy to obtain a firearm of any type. We are also influenced by the Sad stories which come out of the states to the UK where guns have been abused.

Other than the school incidents, one which springs out in the UK is a case of an Englishman who stopped his car in an american neighbourhood and walked up to the front door of someone's house to ask directions. He knocked on the door, it opened, he faced the barrel of a gun and then died as the house owner shot him.

Why we ask ourselves. Because a gun was available to shoot him, because it was a case of mistaken identity, because there was a desire to use a gun. That man had a family I guess that didn't matter, all that mattered was the right for that American to bear arms and defend himself.

This is the situation as we see it in the UK and that is why we banned guns, to remove one of the easiest methods to kill someone. Sure if you really want to do it you can, but I really wouldn't want to piss someone off who regularly carried a gun. One wrong word at the wrong time and that barrel could be pointed at me.

I suspect this will really annoy those who care deeply about guns, sorry guys but there it is. Whilst Jaguar is an expert with Guns and probably very responsible with it, there are probably more out people out there who are not and can find gun access very easy.

Jez.