Loving how the planet, in your personal geography, is reduced to the two or three countries that the NRA comitees allows you to mention.

--

You know, you function exactly like the typical racist who cut out a newsbrief about some fitting "agression by an immigrant", imagining he knows all about what happened and how it happened, and extrapolating it into arguments for general xenophobia with no regards for anything beyind his blinders (such as : foreigners in general). You can discuss culture, migration, integration, and broaden the discussion as much as you want, that guy will keep his hand clunched on the few lines that represent the world to him, and hold onto his own impression of having understood the universe. Everything will come down to his foaming "but yesterday three foreigners did that, and probably like this, because it is logical !". He needs no perspective, no other angle, approach, experience or contact with the broad subject he rants about- any of this will be discarded as out of the subject. What matters is the newsbrief, that his own ideological community has validated as relevant and illustrative-of-everything, and worthy of circulation within their own networks of self-reaffirmation discourses.

And here you're adressing people who do live in Europe. It's as if that racist was adressing people who actually live with foreigners, trying to explain them "how it is" and "how they are" by waving this press cutting in front of them, and trying to convince them that their everyday life is how he imagines it to be, is what his interpretation of that newsbrief seems to validate. Just like he can't break out of his broad fantasies, and will desperately select "news" that he can seem to fit "logically" with them, you can't imagine countries or sociocultures that function on different basis than how you envision your own environment (technically this is called ethnocentrism). You disregard the testimony of those who are actually familiar with their own -european- context, you impose your own remote assumptions as universal truth (circularly defining what "makes sense" or "is logical" by how it fits in or contradicts your universalist assumptions), and you avoid everything outside the factoïds that you're trained to agitate as arguments.

You lack a basic knowledge and a basic "feel" of swiss society when you speak of Switzerland (the basic fact that none of us, in Switzerland, assume that our neighbour would defend themselves with a firearm if robbed, the basic fact that "using weapons to protect democracy versus a state turned dictatorial" is simply absolutely absent of popular discourses and public debates on firearms), and you refuse to take in consideration the geberal statistics of "gun control" versus "crime rates" throughout Europe, which illustrates a general rule of, by default, strick gun control AND low crime violence. Refusing to draw your attention to that (and even more to aknowledge it) simply disqualifies all your discourses about universals and about regions you ignore. It means that you have no background knowledge, on which to use, and to which to articulate, and through which to put in perspective, the out-of-context "trivia" that you solely rely on.

You are currently trying to support universalist beliefs ("security stems from individual self-defense ability") through a couple of shoehorned exemples, deliberately pushing aside the general situation in Europe, and this makes you ridiculous. It's on the same level as claiming that a computer mouse requires Mac OS to run, and demonstrating it with exemples of a company being rumoured to be using both Macs and computer mice. And claiming this in front of a majority of Win/Linux users, whose denegations ("uh no, here we don't") are deemed illogical and biased. You can try very hard to prove that a certain company does (and good luck if you're wrong and only knowing that company through militant articles), but it won't change a thing to your general point being laughable. It is globally (at european level), and it is locally (when it comes to switzerland). Both contexts (both "companies") that we know way better than you do.

As long as you don't measure your lack of understanding of the basics of european socities and everyday lives, no discussion has even started. The points you are trying to make simply start off the mark.

Maybe a couple pictures can more easily illustrate the role of firearms in Switzerland. As has already been pointed out, personal self defense isn't a widespread function of firearms here. There are of course people who privately own dozens or hundreds of guns and an indeterminable number of those people are likely prepared to shoot a burglar (as in any other country) but for the largest part, the functions of firearms are: Sport, tradition, military service, hunting & collecting.

*For a somewhat amusing example, in the following video at minute mark 6:00 there's an elderly man who, when asked how many guns he owns, answers 'ah well...a few...'. His granddaughter then says 'there are 215, I counted them!'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuKNA-r__bI

A few days ago The Onion did a nice pro/con piece regarding gun control. Oddly enough I thought their best point came from the Pro Gun lobby. Paraphrasing, it pointed out that if Americans are unable to arm themselves they will be unable to defend themselves against a government that posses the largest stock pile of nuclear weapons on the planet. :P

Of course this doesn't even mention all the other good stuff.

Do you really think that if the U.S. government turns tyrannical that your ability to own an AK-47 is going to stop them from repressing you? I'm no military expert but I don't like the chances of your assault rifle going up against an armored tank division or a squadron of stealth bombers.

Um, fuck you, I'm not a racist.

You are just as xenophobic as me by your own standards, so go preach to someone else. Your paragraphs, as large as they are, and they are increasing in size, are completely vain. It's nothing but biased self righteous monologues.

Cite some statistics die hard liberal (I am not a die hard conservative, so I can say that without hypocrisy) or please GTFO.

Quibbles and strawmen, sarcasm and bias. You aren't getting to the meat of the issue, and you're wasting everybody's time.

For other people assuming me to be the one actually biased, I delivered my ultimatum already. If he wants to challenge the status quo, he is the one that has the burden of proof. Detroit couldn't hide it's statistics, and Britain's statistics are bullshit, a large margin of bullshit. The rest of America isn't exactly at a state of emergency, that would be mexico, or even ironically Britain, which is the murder capital of Europe.

Also, as a person who lives in Switzerland, you assume too much about your fellow citizens, too much that makes absolutely no sense. You may have friends and neighbors and family that might agree with you, but that is not everybody.

If you want to assume I'm close minded and isolated and deluded, please look at yourself for a moment. You can keep delivering monologues filled with baseless assumptions and opinions, but unless you're just trying to suck off all the egos of people that agree with you, you're wasting your time. Your opinions have no substance. Mine do. Chanting "you're wrong you're wrong" is not going to change that.

Fools speak because they have to say something, not because they have something of worth to say. Volume does not equal substance.
The military has the advantage of smarter technology and organization. In terms of raw power, numbers, and resources, and especially an inherent strategical and tactical advantage (imagine if Russians could just teleport into a bunch of strategic positions, citizens have the advantage of already being there) yes, an armed populace is a nightmare to any invasion, and also any tyrannical government.

And nuclear weapons are never an option when it means everybody loses, so that's complete bullshit. A government would not use nuclear weapons on it's own people and lay waste to it's own resources and useful sheep, even as inconvenient as the sheep might become in being self aware.

You are however an idiot : You completely miss the point of the "racism" analogy, and you don't realise the difference between stating an opinion and describing what arguments are and are not used, by the different sides, in the local public debates about a specific subject.

But don't bother to read this either. Shove your head deeper in the ground. We've done all we could for you.

You are the one with his head in the ground. If my head is in the ground, at least I try to contemplate what is above my head. You don't even begin to do that. Perhaps statistics and logic exist that can refute my own, I even admit that, but you need to present them.

I don't give a fuck about your analogy, I stopped reading. Don't compare me to a racist, not even as an analogy. That's why I outright told you to fuck off. I will not stand for that.

Tee hee.

Okay I don't care how compelling someone's argument is, and I don't care if I agree with their side of the argument, when they resort to telling people to "fuck off" they LOSE THE ARGUMENT! :D I've met twelve year olds that handle disagreements with more intelligence and dignity than that, and being a pedophile trust me, I've me A LOT of twelve year olds. :D

There's a point where anger is justified, and even sometimes useful. Anyone who doesn't think it was justified can look at our exchange throughout the pages.

And hopefully the pedophile thing is just bait. I'm assuming it is.

Where is anger justified, especially in this conversation?

And I don't bait....I joke. I'm guessing that's not a really big activity on your end. XD

You have a very dry sense of humor then. Nobody thought it was funny, and I think even my opponent above me would agree.

I'd almost say you were serious and now you're desperately back peddling.

You had a convincing argument to say that maybe it was bait to draw me out, but to say it was an attempt at humor is pretty shady.

On that subject, as long as it's consensual I don't mind what you do with whoever in the bedroom, but I think I'd have to draw a clear line at 16 years old and not younger, as young people do not have mature brains with which to make rational decisions. 12 year olds is uh... well it's what it is.

Don't really want to argue with you, not saying you're a pedo, but you can't really blame me for putting together the pieces that way, I mean look at how it looks to me or anyone else.

And where is anger justified? In the town of fuck you that's why. I don't care to point it out. So ⌐■_■╭∩ and goodbye forever.

I'm done with the thread. Good bye. :D
Besides even if I wanted to continue in here it would be pointless. No matter what I do I could never in my wildest dreams hope to counter something so intellectual and though provoking as using keyboard characters to give someone the finger. You must be the 2nd coming of Socrates! I bow down before you. :P

OOOPS! Several minutes after that last post and I realized I do owe the OP an apology. I thought he was being silly with his "town of fuck you" comment but it turns out he's right, and it's a real place. I can't believe I missed it; it's just north of Azra's Crossing.