Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: sandorski
Switzerland is completely different situation for 2 reasons:
1) The Swiss are not batshit insane 😛😀 Seriously though, Swiss Society has proven that they are Reponsible enough to own firearms.
2) Every Swiss person of age(Males for sure, females I assume have been included) is properly trained in the use of Firearms for the purpose of National Defense. They don't have Gun Ownership simply because it's a Right, they have it because it is a Responsibility. That's a huge difference right there.
Certainly the US Constitution implies a Responsibility similar to what the Swiss have, but it has not been perceived or implemented in anyway similar to the Swiss.
1) What about the fact that when the DC gun ban went into effect gun violence in DC
climbed? Or what about the fact that states in the US that have legalized concealed carry have seen the crime rate
decline? Does that not prove responsibility? How about the fact that concealed carry permit holders are several orders of magnitude less likely to be involved in any crime?
2) So, since I've had professional training from former Military personnel and active Police officers and since I practice at least twice a week at a range (significantly more often than actual police, by the way) I'm OK to have a gun according to you? I'm glad that we agree.
ZV
1) A gun ban in a single City surrounded by easy access is not going to work. You would need a National Ban and time before the benefits could be realized.
2) Maybe.
3) You're retarded.
That really wasn't necessary and doesn't help his perception of gun owners at all. Remember, we need to be ambassadors. Every sarcastic reply we indulge in only further solidifies the image of gun owners as being immature and sarcastic.
When an item is mentioned predominantly in connection with crime, it is natural for humans to begin to associate the object with the action even though the object is inherently inert and indifferent. Unless someone grows up with a close relative who shoots, the only exposure they are likely to have to guns is through crime reports on the news and through movies, both of which tend to show only the more violent sides of humanity because, frankly, a news show that only mentioned the millions of people who shopped safely or a movie that showed the hero holding a mediation conference with the villain would be boring.
Many people are afraid of flying for similar reasons. Plane crashes make headlines and because of a psychological phenomenon known as the availability heuristic our brains naturally weight the probability of those incidents higher because we can recall more stories about planes crashing than stories about planes landing saves. It's a natural mental process that we all engage in to some degree.
The association of guns with crime is far from "retarded". Rather, it's a natural reaction to the way guns are presented to people who have not grown up around them. If the only time I ever saw a car was on the news during a report about a car accident, it would be easy for me to assume that cars were horribly dangerous and needed to be controlled or maybe even banned.
It's not that anti-gun people are "stupid" (generally they're quite intelligent). It's not that the news media are portraying guns negatively (as mentioned already, planes and cars are mentioned as negatively in news reports IMO). It's just that most anti-gun people have not had exposure to guns in any context other than news reports or, tragically, their only exposure to guns has been when one was used illegally against them or against a loved one.
I do not begrudge any man or woman his or her opinion. I will defend my own opinion when I can, but a person is not "retarded" because they disagree with me.
ZV
