Response to jvds' 10K challenge

Not sure if you live in the city or not, but my challege to you, and all people who are opposed to guns, is put a large sign in your front yard saying “There are no guns in this household, nor will there ever be”
Sleep well!

Are you offering $10,000 too?

I’m opposed to unrestricted gun ownership, and yes, I own a gun. Why? Because a lot of other people (whose intentions I know nothing of) do as well.

Your challenge is patently illogical and moronic!

Of course posting such a sign would be illogical and moronic … that was the whole point. It is equally illogic and moronic to take away the guns, the “bad guys” are gonna get 'em anyway, legal or not!

That’s sounds like an invitation for every knucklehead WITH A GUN to rob you, thereby violating the second part of your statement. There are several good reasons for owning a gun and for not owning a gun. You’re giving me none of them.

It is equally illogic and moronic to take away the guns, the “bad guys” are gonna get 'em anyway, legal or not


Funny, they’re not having that problem in England or Japan.

England and Japan are often brought up. Why is Switzerland ignored? They have a very high rate of gun ownership, perhaps as high as the U.S., I’m not sure. Yet they have very few of the social problems we suffer as an ostensible result of “widespread gun availability”. Obviously they are doing something different which does not require the prohibition of firearms. It may be something that isn’t appropriate or practical for the U.S., but I’d still like to know more about their system. Anyone here from Switzerland?

Also, if you’re going to mention foreign countries as part of this debate, you really have to look at all of them, and explain the ones that contradict any hypotheses we may have.

IIRC every adult male in Switzerland is a member of the national militia and are required to maintain their own firearms. This means that all these gun owners are REGISTERED with the gov. and have beed extensively TRAINED in their use. I doubt very many of these firearms are handguns. I’m also guessing that the police there frown on them being carried around in the cities or being concealed on ones person.

IMO firearms and urban enviroments are a formula for disaster. Even our rootin’-tootin’-shootin’ forefathers had the wisdom to make visitors check their weapons with the Sheriff before being allowed to proceed into town. I find this “absolutely no restrictions” stance by the NRA and its supporters to be an arguement for a society like that in Beirut or Mogadishu, not Switzerland!

If you insist on apples to oranges… let’s go.

The Swiss do not have a handgun in every closet, it is an assault rifle. As you may remember we banned them here as to dangerous. Seems that they are OK there though.

Now, let’s look at Mexico. Very tough gun laws. Murder rate? About the same as ours.


Comparisons between societies are largely meaningless, as they quite often have different histories, and as such can have very different personalities and temperments.

Japan’s, England’s and Australia’s crime rates are reportedly on the rise, despite very tough gun control laws.
Mexico’s and South Africa’s are skyrocketing, with even tougher gun control laws.
Yet Switzerland and Israel, two very different countries, have little or no reported street crime (I have been told by a friend that Israel doesn’t count terrorist attacks towards its crime statistics).

We also have right here in America wildly varying crime rates not only by state, but by neighboring counties within a state.

I grew up in a small town in St. Clair county in Illinois, just across the river from St. Louis, and just south of East St. Louis, a poverty stricken hell-hole. Our county crime rates compared to New York City or Detroit.

Yet in Monroe county, less than two miles south of my hometown, crime was practically non-existant. Monroe county is largely a rural area, with an agrarian-based economy.

Anyone care to venture a guess as to why this might be so?

I’m not a sociologist, a historian or a statistician, and so I cannot offer any proofs, theorems or statistics to back up my opinion.
I’m going strictly off of gut instinct and my own common sense.
But I think the nature of a society might have more to do with its level of violence than access to guns.


I’ll step in here, since I’m from Switzerland.
It’s not a national militia, it’s the Swiss Army! If anyone calls it a militia again on this thread, they’ll be sorry. :slight_smile:

Yes, of course, they’re registered with the government. Any swiss soldier with his/her weapon at home has to go to a mandatory marksmanship test once a year (or every other year, I forget.) Of course, these weapons are assault rifles in the case of common soldiers, and handguns in the case of officers. (My father was in the army band, all he had was a bayonnette.)

When you have the weapon at home, you’re supposed to remove the firing pin or whatever and lock it up. You cannot use except when on military duty.

As far as getting a rifle for hunting use, I’m not sure what the law is on that, except that of course you can’t buy it anonymously.

Above are the facts on gun ownership in Switzerland, what you see below is my personal opinion.

I couldn’t tell you the social reasons why there is a lower murder rate in Switzerland (I would guess that the higher standard of living would be one explanation).
But I would think that since more people in the US have the temptation to take weapons and go shoot up crowds, maybe weapons shouldn’t be as readily available.

If I know a kid is a pyromaniac, I would try to figure out why, but in the meantime I wouldn’t give him matches to play with.

Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

I was just giving those 2 countries as examples of strict gun laws where (for the most part) “bad guys” don’t get guns anyway. I wasn’t making the argument that strict gun laws always equals low murder rates.

As for Mexico, “gun laws” and “gun law enforcement” are two very different things.

I think that both factors are important. If someone doesn’t have access to a high-powered rifle he’s going to have a harder time taking out people from the clock tower with a bow or harpoon.

Did anyone here read an artice a few years back by senator Moynahan (sp?) where instead of restricting firearms, he proposed restricting ammo. What would the constitutionality of this be?

If we ever go to war with Switerland, I’ll take out the tuba player! :wink:

The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. – E. Grebenik

Switerland? SWITERLAND? Damn IBM keyboard ate my ‘z’. Hmph!

The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. – E. Grebenik

Can’t do that, on the battlefield band members are medical personnel and wear an armband with the red cross. Taking out a tuba player would be ungentlemanly and contrary to the Geneva Conventions.

P.S. Luckily for you, my father was a trumpet player. Otherwise I would have to kick your butt! :slight_smile:

Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

“As for Mexico, “gun laws” and “gun law enforcement” are two very different things.”

And in the US ?
I would say that we need to enforce the laws we have on the books before we make up new ones.