Violence??

[DeadeyeDan[ToA]]

>>Do you believe in the sale and proliferation of purely offensive firearms and ammunition?

>>I believe offensive weapons have only use in the hands of criminals and law enforcement agents, no one needs hollow points to protect their family.

There's no such thing as a weapon you can only use to attack, and not defend. I don't think you understand what a hollowpoint is... what should they be using? FMJ? Pre-fragmented rounds? In some calibers, both of those can be not enough to stop an intruder, and some FMJ's can punch through many interior walls, and put innocent people at risk. Hollowpoints are usually the PERFECT choice for defending a household- they are good at stopping intruders in their tracks, and they won't overpenetrate and then go through a wall and kill someone else.

Btw, the part of my post you didn't include was NOT "20 million americans are saved by guns each year", it was "Every year in the US, 2 million people protect themselves with guns". No numerical or semantic error.

 

[ap]

>>Do believe there is problem with firearm violence in the US? if so, is it worth solving? if so, how?

>Yes. Yes. Increase the punishments for armed and/or violent crimes, and convict people for them more often.

That is a ridiculous response. Increasing punishment? first of all, people commiting such acts are WAY beyond considering the consequences of their actions. They obviously don't think twice about what theyre doing and either think they will get away with it, or want to be caught.

Some of the 'major' shootings lately in the states have ended up being suicide missions in the end... what do we do then? theres nobody to punish... just a bunch innocent people dead.

does the punishment of a gun yielding homicidal maniac really bring any sort of comfort to the families and friends of the victims?

You cant wait for shootings to happen, THEN correct the problem...you've got to stop them before they happen in the first place. Punishing criminals doesnt bring back the dead... it just burns holes in tax payers pockets.

But preventing those crimes from happening in the first place, both saves lives...and prevents the threat of a random gun attack on innocent people.

The only way to do that is to have much stricter laws, and educate the masses on the dangers and seriousness of firearms...thats the root of the problem...punishing criminals is at the very end of the line...when thats the only thing left to do.

>>Do you the invasion of privacy involved in a background check is justified before someone is permitted to own a firearm?
and is a waiting period long enough for a sufficient check unreasonable?

>Waiting periods are stupid, and have caused the loss of innocent lives.

do you really think that during the waiting period an owner endures to purchase a firearm, that his and/or his families life will be threatened during that span? and would they NEED a firearm to 'cheat' death? I hardly doubt that...

They have probably saved countless more lives than they have ended. Any place with an effective background check prevents guns from getting into the hands of psychopaths and other threats to the general public. Sadly, however...in many cases(US especially) there are no checks present and theyre probably easier to obtain than the hottest 'beanie baby' on the market.

Think solving the problem before it starts, not after its too late.

 

[DeadeyeDan[ToA]]

>>That is a ridiculous response. Increasing punishment? first of all, people commiting such acts are WAY beyond considering the consequences of their actions. They obviously don't think twice about what theyre doing and either think they will get away with it, or want to be caught.

Yet, Japan has hardly any crime... they have a 99.1% conviction rate. If you look at the crime increase over the years in this country, you'll see they started decreasing when conviction rates go down. In 1960 there was about half the crime, yet still tons of guns... because we convicted 800 of every 1000 people in court. (now it's around 300)

>>does the punishment of a gun yielding homicidal maniac really bring any sort of comfort to the families and friends of the victims?

I don't know, ask them. The father of the 2/3 year old in Britain who was killed by a 9 and 10 year old swore on camera that if they weren't imprisoned he'd kill them himself. BUT, that's not the point. The point is a deterrent, at which it works much better.

>>you've got to stop them before they happen in the first place

The problem is, you can't. The sad truth is, if someone wants to kill you, they can.

>>it just burns holes in tax payers pockets

The way we punish them now, yes. We need to stop turning prisons into club-meds for criminals. They get television, free gym access, decent food and living quarters, even paying jobs. When I got in trouble as a young child the TV was the *first* thing to go... maybe I should have killed somebody instead of stealing cookies. And don't forget the homeless people starving and freezing on street corners, while rapists and murderers live the good life.

>>The only way to do that is to have much stricter laws, and educate the masses on the dangers and seriousness of firearms...thats the root of the problem

While I agree with the education thing (I've always firmly believed this), what do you mean by stricter laws?

>>do you really think that during the waiting period an owner endures to purchase a firearm, that his and/or his families life will be threatened during that span? and would they NEED a firearm to 'cheat' death? I hardly doubt that...

>>They have probably saved countless more lives than they have ended. Any place with an effective background check prevents guns from getting into the hands of psychopaths and other threats to the general public. Sadly, however...in many cases(US especially) there are no checks present and theyre probably easier to obtain than the hottest 'beanie baby' on the market.

Wrong. They do not save lives. WAITING PERIODS DO NOT MAKE THE BACKGROUND CHECK MORE EFFECTIVE. All the info is obtained within a few minutes. The "Instant-check" computers work perfectly, AND they get arrests, unlike the waiting periods which don't run the tests until after the criminals have left, so they lose the opportunity to arrest them. Please tell me what states do not require the instant-check system, before you assume there are "many".

And the criminals don't buy their guns legally anyway, remember, so the background checks and waiting periods don't affect them.

For more information on the supposed success of waiting perios, go to http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/19990728-WaitingPeriods-001.html.

For more information about Prosecution as a Prevention, go to http://www.nraila.org/show.cgi?page=/research/19990706-CrimeCriminalJustice-001.html

[This message has been edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] (edited 03-06-2000).]

 

[Lance201]

Hi guys... a lot of posts and a little change in the topic. In Germany we have a very restricted gaunlaw and it´s OK in my opinion. Because I think there are to many stupid persons out there without brain and the possibilty to imagine things. It´s to dangerous if you make it to easy for them to get firearms. Criminals will always get there arms somewhere, but they are not the problem, because I will be protected from them by the state (police!). But no one will protect me from the mass of Idiots in my country. They could do harm withou real firearms. A guy shot a sylvesterrocket into my haed at a graet event in our city... 3 days in the hospital and big scar on the top of my head. i will not think about what will happen if such a person will get close to firearms.
OK enough talking let´s play Inf with the great maps from bastard_o (hillbase and bridgetoofar are may favorites), because nobody can be insured only by playing a game!

LCPL TWENTY

 

[DeadeyeDan[ToA]]

http://homes.acmecity.com/rosie/luck/307/

 

[Commie]

Oi, I double posted. My bad. Read my comment below

Cheers,
Commmie

[This message has been edited by Commie (edited 03-11-2000).]

 

[Commie]

DeadeyeDan,
If you want to prove your point you may want to use more...neutral websites? Linking to an organization like the NRA, who obviously are biased, doesn't do much to prove your point in my mind.

Oh, and I would like to respond to a quote on that other site you provided a link to
(http://homes.acmecity.com/rosie/luck/307/)

"Only armed people are free."

I'm Danish, I'm unarmed, and I'm damn free

"How many Jews would have died if every time the Gestapo or SS came for them, those groups had been met by a hail of gunfire?"

I have often wondered myself why the Jews didn't resist, I don't think the answer is that they weren't armed. I think the answer is that they simply couldn't believe that one man could be so cruel towards another.
Hell, I still can't believe that people can be so cruel towards each other. We humans, as a species, are an odd bunch.

As for gun control, I don't see why someone would need a rifle, handgun or whatever. I live my life quite comfortably without firearms.

------------------
Ivan...IVAN!!!

 

[DeadeyeDan[ToA]]

Why doesn't it? A neutral website would not have persuasive articles and such, filled with statistics that show why gun control is a bad thing. The NRA uses clear, factual information ONLY, with detailed bibliographies, they seem like the ones to trust on the issue, not some anti-gun site claiming to be neutral and using twisted logic and misleading stats.

You don't think the jews being armed would matter? How much do you know about Switzerland in the WW2 era? They had no Army, Hitler hated the Swiss with a passion, they were right in his fastest route to France, but he did not invade the Swiss- their population was very armed and very dedicated, and would fight them to the last drop of Swiss blood... the Swiss would have lost, but Germany would suffer great losses, not enough to justify such a small gain. What if the jews in Germany disobeyed Hitler's gun control laws, heavily armed themselves, and swore to fight to the death? Do you think Hitler would think it was worth it to lose 2-5 more Nazi's just to kill one more jew?

>>As for gun control, I don't see why someone would need a rifle, handgun or whatever. I live my life quite comfortably without firearms.

Well, do you NEED a car? Should we take cars away from everyone because they don't NEED them? After all, cars kill MANY more people than guns do... and believe it or not, some people DO need them- every DAY here in the US, 6,000 people protect themselves with firearms.

[This message has been edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] (edited 03-11-2000).]

 

[Snakeye]

Actually some jews put up resistance against the Nazis - although too few in number to achieve any effect..I wouldn't try to guess what had happened if more of them had had guns.
About Switzerland; I'm half-swiss, and I know a bit about this era in history, and therefore don't think that a possible armed resistance would have discouraged the third reich to attack Switzerland. It was rather the really bad terrain, which would have led to a bloody guerilla war; that wasn't worth it..
Also Switzerland was far from incooperative - they had some treaties about letting German trains through their land; some even said they sold weapons to the Nazis.
After all I wouldn't think Switzerland was left alone because of neutrality(that's rather a joke, since noone ever bothered about neutrality..) or because the Swiss population, which might have fought to the last man; just the losses in a mountain war are quite high - just like in Monte Cassino - and the little country wasn't worth that many resources.

But I do believe, that an armed population is a free one. It should be just observed who gets weapons and what kind of weapons are available(legally, of course) - I really don't see the reason for anyone to have a M61 Vulcan - that's rather stupid for self-defense; but a M9 or a semi-auto carbine or a shotgun can be quite handy in a worst case scenario.

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

 

[AgentSmith]

My question is.. how come because some people went totally insane after playing violent video games all of the "normal" people can't play them.. I mean its scary, I've seen a kid like that, when I was young there was a kid, I would go to his house and after playing a long game of doom he would go outside and kick stuff and jump around pretending he had a rocket launcher or something..

But just because two people went really insane doesn't mean every person will go insane.. ahh. I don't know how to word this, somebody help me out..

 

[Snakeye]

Someone who goes insane because playing violent games, will also go insane if anybody touches his car, says hello, or makes a remark about his haircut..
Some people are insane - some of them will run out one day and kill anybody in sight and some won't. I don't think that banning violent games, guns, violent TV-stuff will change anything.
To be honest I would rather go out and kill someone after watching four hours of Dawson's Creek and Teletubbies than after four hours and 1000 frags of INF - or a FMJ, 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'Natural born killers'-Session..
I think it's the other way round; playing INF(especially because it it realistic) won't cause me to kill people - why?
1. I get rid of my aggressions..
2. I learn that running around with a gun and shooting people causes my death within 10 mins - with only 5 bots..now try to imagine how fast you die against 50 cops?

The real problem are the Rambo-type games/movies, which suggest that anybody is able to take out an army, get hit twelvehundred times and still gets away..
That ain't realistic!

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

 

[Commie]

"The NRA uses clear, factual information ONLY, with detailed bibliographies, they seem like the ones to trust on the issue, not some anti-gun site claiming to be neutral and using twisted logic and misleading stats."

You got it backwards. Twisted logic? Good description of the NRA site.

As for armed Jews. Trained SS soldiers (or just normal ones) against a bunch of old folks and children? Sounds like a slaughter to me. I'll admit I don't know too much about the Swiss' role in the war, but I have a hard time believe that Hitler chose not to invade Switzerland because the population was armed. He probably stayed out because the country had no strategic value, or some such thing.

And yes, I NEED a car. It is a form of transportation! I NEED it to get to work.
You don't need a gun, it serves no real purpose. Its a mechanical device that fires a slug at high speeds, such a device doesn't belong in a modern, civilized society.

Guns belong two places - In the hands of law enforcement officers and trained military personnel. Needing a handgun to protect yourself is pure BS.

 

[Snakeye]

I really wouldn't say Switzerland has no strategic value - it's in the heart of Europe and provides some shortcuts from Germany to Italy and France! Together with a good road&rail system already established in that time plus a very good defensive terrain!
The stratecig value of Switzerland is not that small, just the terrain together with the Swiss army - which was and is very good trained in mountain warfare - makes it a very costy piece of earth for any aggressor.
One more:
Throw away your pictures about all jews being old men or little children; as anybody would anticipate the jews consisted of the usual mix of ages every population consists of.
And don't think children are bad soldiers..
Just ask everybodys favourite dictators of the world:
Children can kill you as good as anybody; of course not babies..

Last thing:
I don't know where you come from, but in Austria we have trains, busses, bikes and of course our feet as means of transportation; a car is no necessity, there are other ways to get to work. Somehow peolpe also managed to go to work when cars where not invented.

Oh, and I wouldn't say that the NRA is more biased than Anti-Weapon-Groups; both use statistics they find useful for underlining their arguments.

(really)final thought:
I wouldn't like to live in a country, where only cops&soldiers have weapons; reminds me of the Third Reich, or the CCCP, or any other tyranny. And how would you get guns away from criminals? Ask them friendly to trade them for toys? Criminals always get guns.

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing

 

[Guest]

Guess it's about time for the Inf Weapons Consultant to jump in and say a few things.

Commie, YOU absolutely do NOT need a car, especially to get to work. You can walk, take a bus, ride a bicycle, carpool. All four are perfectly viable options and demonstrate you certainly don't NEED a car.

On that same token, nobody NEEDS a gun. I certainly don't need my AR-15, my Tokarev pistol that can put an 86 gr bullet through soft body armor, or my 12 ga short-barrelled shotgun. The truth is, I WANT them. I want them because I enjoy shooting them. It's fun. I enjoy the cacophony of bursting nitrocellulose, the crack of copper-encased lead and the ring of brass on the rocky earth, the skill to accurately put a hole in an empty propane tank 100 yards distant, the stuttering kick of a recoiling stock into my shoulder, the satisfaction and amazing relief of stress and worry that destroying something with a gunshot brings. Does this mean I'm crazy?

Well, let's analyze the facts. I posess a Firearms Acquisition Certificate and own handguns and restricted rifles, authorized by the federal government. I hold three licenses to purchase, handle, and use explosives. I have a restricted area pass and proximity card that allows me onto the airfield of Winnipeg International Airport. I carry a handgun while protecting millions of dollars in cash, negotiables, and gold bullion in the performance of my duties with an armored car company. My guess is I wouldn't be at this point if I wasn't mentally sound. Anyone care to guess my age?

I agree wholeheartedly that society has degraded to the point where small arms should NOT be available to each and every living soul. But at the same time, responsible citizens should NOT be hampered from owning them. If you make a law that few people respect, you reduce respect for ALL laws. The U.S. '94 Crime Bill is a perfect example. According to this bill, a semiautomatic rifle may only have 2 "evil features", that being a pistol grip, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, flash hider, grenade launching attachment, or collapsible stock (when this law was passed, I'll bet the number of drive-by bayonettings dropped significantly). Not only do people disobey this law, it's hardly enforced by both local and federal law enforcement agencies. I've spoken to several people over the phone, respectable hard-working folks like you and me, who openly admit to having a post-ban AR-15 with a flash suppressor and baoynet lug. Why? Because they don't respect the law because it makes no sense. Then again, it doesn't have to make sense; it's government policy.

I'm not about to start spewing forth what controls I think should be put into place to curb violence (note I did not say GUN violence), although banning guns certainly isn't one of them. Australia tried it with "assault weapons" and a police official later publically admitted it was a failure. Britain did it with almost all guns and the rate for robbery with a firearm went up 106%. There are several gun laws already on the books in both the United States and Canada, and it would take more than a few hands to count the number of people I've spoken to that disobey at least five of them wilfully, simply because the laws are ridiculous or unjust.

There, I've said my piece. I know I'm not going to change any minds with this post, although I felt obligated to say something. Reminds me of a quote I once read, "Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig". Let me close by stating though I think it's amazingly hypocritical for someone to be calling for a ban on firearms, while at the same time playing a game whose entire basis is on firearms.

------------------
Gryphon/JTF2
Infiltration Firearms QA Consultant

=JTF2= Infiltration Server Info

 

[Guest]

Guess it's about time for the Inf Weapons Consultant to jump in and say a few things.

Commie, YOU absolutely do NOT need a car, especially to get to work. You can walk, take a bus, ride a bicycle, carpool. All four are perfectly viable options and demonstrate you certainly don't NEED a car.

On that same token, nobody NEEDS a gun. I certainly don't need my AR-15, my Tokarev pistol that can put an 86 gr bullet through soft body armor, or my 12 ga short-barrelled shotgun. The truth is, I WANT them. I want them because I enjoy shooting them. It's fun. I enjoy the cacophony of bursting nitrocellulose, the crack of copper-encased lead and the ring of brass on the rocky earth, the skill to accurately put a hole in an empty propane tank 100 yards distant, the stuttering kick of a recoiling stock into my shoulder, the satisfaction and amazing relief of stress and worry that destroying something with a gunshot brings. Does this mean I'm crazy?

Well, let's analyze the facts. I posess a Firearms Acquisition Certificate and own handguns and restricted rifles, authorized by the federal government. I hold three licenses to purchase, handle, and use explosives. I have a restricted area pass and proximity card that allows me onto the airfield of Winnipeg International Airport. I carry a handgun while protecting millions of dollars in cash, negotiables, and gold bullion in the performance of my duties with an armored car company. My guess is I wouldn't be at this point if I wasn't mentally sound. Anyone care to guess my age?

I agree wholeheartedly that society has degraded to the point where small arms should NOT be available to each and every living soul. But at the same time, responsible citizens should NOT be hampered from owning them. If you make a law that few people respect, you reduce respect for ALL laws. The U.S. '94 Crime Bill is a perfect example. According to this bill, a semiautomatic rifle may only have 2 "evil features", that being a pistol grip, detachable magazine, bayonet lug, flash hider, grenade launching attachment, or collapsible stock (when this law was passed, I'll bet the number of drive-by bayonettings dropped significantly). Not only do people disobey this law, it's hardly enforced by both local and federal law enforcement agencies. I've spoken to several people over the phone, respectable hard-working folks like you and me, who openly admit to having a post-ban AR-15 with a flash suppressor and baoynet lug. Why? Because they don't respect the law because it makes no sense. Then again, it doesn't have to make sense; it's government policy.

I'm not about to start spewing forth what controls I think should be put into place to curb violence (note I did not say GUN violence), although banning guns certainly isn't one of them. Australia tried it with "assault weapons" and a police official later publically admitted it was a failure. Britain did it with almost all guns and the rate for robbery with a firearm went up 106%. There are several gun laws already on the books in both the United States and Canada, and it would take more than a few hands to count the number of people I've spoken to that disobey at least five of them wilfully, simply because the laws are ridiculous or unjust.

There, I've said my piece. I know I'm not going to change any minds with this post, although I felt obligated to say something. Reminds me of a quote I once read, "Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig". Let me close by stating though I think it's amazingly hypocritical for someone to be calling for a ban on firearms, while at the same time playing a game whose entire basis is on firearms.

------------------
Gryphon/JTF2
Infiltration Firearms QA Consultant

=JTF2= Infiltration Server Info

 

[DeadeyeDan[ToA]]

Well said, Snakeye. Edit: Oh and Gryphon too (he snuck one in there while I was typing). *applause*

>>You got it backwards. Twisted logic? Good description of the NRA site.

Really? Why don't you go to their site http://www.nraila.org , and find some of that twisted logic, and report back here with some info to debunk it, then?

And like Snake said, it did have strategic value, and it was right in Hitler's route to france, AND he repeatedly confessed to HATING the swiss... but the almighty fascist conquerer went *around* puny little Switzerland. One thing I would like to point out, about Snake's post- the Swiss technically had no army, only a militia made up of a large % of the citizens (like the US did in the Revolutionary war). And yes, the mountain terrain did have alot to do with it, but the fact remains that that Swiss gunning down all the german troops from his very concealed sniper position would have been a citizen... maybe a banker, or a shoemaker, even a housewife. And even though the Jews in Germany didn't have that mountain terrain, they still have to come to your front door to take you away, they'd be on the Jews turf, I'm sure they could have taken many a Nazi down with them.

>>And yes, I NEED a car.

You don't need a car any more than I need a gun. You could just ride the bus... what are you going to make us defend our houses with? Slingshots? Statistically speaking, trying to defend yourself with anything BUT a gun will probably just anger your attacker and make him want to hurt your MORE than he already did. The presence of a gun, however, usually results in the attacker turning tail and running, usually without firing a shot.

>>Its a mechanical device that fires a slug at high speeds, such a device doesn't belong in a modern, civilized society.

Let's see, guns save more lives than they kill, and guns kill less people than cars. Just because guns were made to hurt doesn't mean jack shit. Cars and alchoholic beverages weren't made to hurt, but they do a HELL of alot more damage than guns, and never make up for it.

>>Guns belong two places - In the hands of law enforcement officers and trained military personnel. Needing a handgun to protect yourself is pure BS.

No, what you just said is pure BS. Armed resistance is the safest way to respond to an attacker or theif, and you seem to be under the impression that the police will always be there to protect you. The average police response time in the US is over 30 minutes, more than enough time for a criminal to kill/abduct/rob an unarmed victim. In my dad's case, it takes over 2 hours for police to get there, and yes we know because they've had to come down there for break-ins into both his and his neibors houses (around ten in the last 2 years or so around there). My dad may indeed need a handgun to protect himself soon, along with around 2 million others by the time this year is over.

[This message has been edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] (edited 03-12-2000).]

 

[Commie]

Snakeye:
Of course we do have various forms of public transportation here, and that is a viable options to some. My point was that a car's purpose is to transport people, whereas a gun only has one, rather sinister purpose.

I'd be more comfortable living in a country with a strong democratic tradition, that is free of guns (Actually, I pretty much already live in one) I certainly don't feel like I live in a country run by a dictator, ruling party or whatever. I fail to understand why you feel more free owning a gun.

DeadeyeDan:
German success in battle relied on one thing, Blitz krieg. The ability to advance rapidly, using land- and airforces in a deadly combination. Flat terrain is very suitable for such a tactic, mountainous terrain is not. It was much easier for the Germans to go through the very flat Holland to get to France.
Also, I very much doubt that Hitler hated the Swiss. Swiss bankers compromised their supposed neutrality by storing Nazi gold stolen from the Jews. Why would he ruin this relationship?

"You don't need a car any more than I need a gun..."
I need my car so I can get to work, earn money and put food on the table...What exactly do you need your gun for? You don't go out huntin' with it do you? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gryphon:
We may agree on one thing, introducing gun laws in countries where owning firearms is culturally deebly imbedded, and where tons of guns already are in circulation, is pointless. Those laws you mentioned do sound ridiculous. Instead, money should be spent trying to prevent crime. I think it'd be nice to see arms manufactures financially supporting social projects in high crime areas. Prevention is always better than trying to cure the problem once its more or less too late.

"I think it's amazingly hypocritical for someone to be calling for a ban on firearms, while at the same time playing a game whose entire basis is on firearms."

I play UT/INF because it's a different, fun experience. Because it adds new flavor to UT. Me enjoying a computer GAME has nothing to do with the fact that I believe that guns have no place in the hands of civilians, in our modern society. I am capable of separating reality from a computer generated world.

I don't think the majority of INF players care too much about what gun they're firing, what ammunition it uses ect., they play INF because its fun. Same with other MODs like CS

---

I still firmly believe that it is fundamentally wrong for civilians to be armed. Guns have no place in our society. Now, that is my opinion, you have yours. I doubt we'd ever get close to an agreement. So this is the last from me on this subject, unless something comes up that'd require an answer from me.

Cheers,

Commie

[This message has been edited by Commie (edited 03-12-2000).]

 

[DeadeyeDan[ToA]]

>>My point was that a car's purpose is to transport people, whereas a gun only has one, rather sinister purpose.

Your point is moot. Just because a car was made to transport people and a gun to fire deadly projectiles doesn't mean anything, because cars still kill alot more people, and guns protect more people than they kill.

>>I fail to understand why you feel more free owning a gun.

The more rights I have, the more free I am. When people tell me what I can and cannot own, I am less free.

>>It was much easier for the Germans to go through the very flat Holland to get to France.

Really? Have you been through both routes? If not, what's your source on that? There are roads in Switzerland, you know, and a mountain is alot easier to drive around than an entire country.

>>Also, I very much doubt that Hitler hated the Swiss

Hitler called Switzerland "a pimple boil on the face of Europe." He also boasted that he would be "the butcher of the Swiss."

>>I need my car so I can get to work, earn money and put food on the table

Wrong. You don't NEED it. It is a luxury, not a necessity, because as Snake pointed out, you could use public transportation instead. It might be more difficult, but you certainly don't NEED the car.

>>I still firmly believe that it is fundamentally wrong for civilians to be armed

Right, so it was wrong for us to be able to kick the tax-happy Brits out of America? It's wrong to be able to resist tyranny? It's wrong to protect innocent people and their property?

>>Guns have no place in our society.

I don't know about yours, but in ours, when in the right hands, they are the protectors of innocents, and the defenders of freedom. More often than not, those "right hands" belong to a civilian.

[This message has been edited by DeadeyeDan[ToA] (edited 03-12-2000).]

 

[Lance201]

he guys,

you must have a lot of time...

so I think this threat has changed it´s topic several times and we are now at the point where everybody has his arguments and I think no compromise will ever be possible.. so don´t waste the time with this ( strategic value of the swiss... holy jesus .. who cares.. the swiss are a little mountain-tribe where you can make some holiday or put some illegal money there, if you don´t like Luxembourg or Lichtenstein!) discussion and play or work!

LCPL TWENTY
(assault the swiss several times a year by motorbike and break the speedlimits!)

 

[Snakeye]

Boy, you really want to insult me, do you?
I think I mentioned a few time I'm half-swiss; and Switzerland is far more civilized than Germany will ever be!

Snakeye /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
feeling like everybody is against him - except for his M4 of course..

------------------
anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing