How to deal with school bullies

[CrossCuT]

I am not going to sit here and pretend that your banal, faux-outraged opinions are on par with Church teachings.

Oh poo and drat! Youre so right! Dear me, how will I survive?

Meh, pure observation doesn't include executing judgement calls about another person. But I'm going to go read my book now. Doctor Who: Beautiful Chaos, be jealous lol.

As long as Clara isnt in there, I will let you read in peace.

[Winchester]

 

 Serves you right, plebe.

Serves me right for providing the matches and fuel. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes or no, are we operating from the same assumptions? That God is real, that He established a Church, that the Catholic Church is the one He established, and that the Catholic Church possesses authority both temporal and spiritual?

[Socrates]

Gun ownership is mandatory in Switzerland ? I have to say that to my swiss sister-in-law, because she sure doesn't have a gun. I have to say that to my swiss friend who did not did military service and is not a hunter, and thus, have no gun at home. 

So, for your information : in Switzerland, you have the right to keep your weapon after your military service, but you still need a special permit to do that. To have this permit, you need to be in good physical health, and to have a clear criminal record, among other things. And, you are trained to use a weapon, it's not "here's a gun, do whatever you want with it, no matter who you are". To carry a weapon outside, you need to have a special permit (with german name that I have forgotten), and in general, you can not have it if you don't work in security : you don't have the right to walk with a loaded gun in the streets. And you have an examination to check if you know how to properly use it (and they are very demanding, it's a hard test - my brother wanted to work on security, and failed it). Again, swiss have to learn how to use a gun before carrying it loaded everywhere, it's not "you are 6 years old, have fun with your gun". 

Also, in Switzerland, the annual rate of all gun death per 100,000 population was (in 2011), of 3,04, while in France it was of 0,22, so you're wrong. And I'm not speaking about homidice and murder by any means, I'm speaking about homicide and murders by weapons and guns. Have your statistics and facts right. 

(source : http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/france and http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland You can read here that the regulation of gun is considered, in Switzerland and in France, as in the same category : restrictive. In Switerland AND in France, the right to possess a firearm is not guaranteed by law. Seriously, read this before saying that gun ownership is mandatory in Switzerland.) 

But my point was not that, honestly I don't care about gun law in the US, what I care is that for Winchester every gun control law (including Swiss law, I guess) is a pre-crime. My point is that not every country is the US (chocking, I know), and we have the right to have gun control law without being some kind of communist dictature.

(BTW, I kind of like Swiss law, because I believe military service should be mandatory in France too.)

I stand corrected regarding Swiss law on gun ownership.  (I thought I recalled reading somewhere that Swiss citizens are required have a gun, but it seems either me or my source was mistaken.  I should have first fact-checked that.)  Thanks for the clarification.

However, the facts remain that Switzerland has one of the world's higher rates of gun possession (particularly when you take into account civilians in possession of government-owned weapons), as well as an exceptionally low homicide rate.  That helps refute the simplistic "guns cause killings" rhetoric often spewed by "gun control" advocates.

Conversely, there are countries with much stricter gun laws that the U.S. (such as Mexico and Russia) with notably higher homicide rates.

I was not wrong regarding Switzerland having lower murder (homicide) rates, as I said nothing about how many of those murders were committed with guns or not.  Arguing that "at least in France fewer were killed with guns" is silly.  Murder is murder, and it is the act of murder that is wrong - not the use of a firearm per se.  This underscores the point I've often made elsewhere that those with murderous intent will find other ways to kill, even if they don't have a gun.

In America, there are places with high rates of gun ownership, and very little murder or other violent crime, and there is evidence that gun ownership has a certain deterrent effect on would-be criminals.  And some cities which had strict handgun laws also had high murder rates.

I agree with Winchester that culture is more related to rates of murder than are gun laws.

(For another example, Britain, often praised for its "gun-control" laws by American "liberals," actually has higher homicide rates now than before it passed strict gun laws.)

You can do what you like in France,  but I'm proud of America's Second Amendment protecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, and think it ought to be upheld.

I don't believe that the means for self-defense (and defense of others) should be restricted to the government (and to criminals who evade the law), and I think it's wrong for government to confiscate weapons, or forbid from attaining weapons, law-abiding citizens who have committed no crime.

[NadaTeTurbe]

Remember something about Swiss : you can't require anything from them. 

About Switzerland and France global homicide rate, while it is slighty higher in France, it is more or less the same : 0,6 (F) and 0,57 (S) in 2012, etc... 

Except that my rethoric is not "gun cause killings", but "gun cause gun killings". Global homicide rate is not caused by gun law, nobody said that, but to a multitude of factors. What I said, is that the more gun you put in the  hand of people, the more gun killing/shooting there will be. And it can be harder to kill when you have fewer access to weapons. See the number of school shooting in the US and in country with restrictive law. You have also to see how the law is applied. Maybe I'm full of clichés, but I don't see Mexico and Russia as countries where the law are strictly applied. 

I don't believe that the means for self-defense should be restricted to the government. Breaking news : there's other way to self-defense than guns. What I believe is that to sell weapons to every people (including criminals and mentally ill people), and not require them to train a minimum to use them, is irresponsible. Guns are dangerous things, we can agree on that, and to treat them like toys is irresponsible. 

[NadaTeTurbe]

Also, what tha fonze are we the 11th country when it comes to guns per capita ??? Unless they think that First World War guns that nobody have used since 1918 are important weapon... 

[Socrates]

Remember something about Swiss : you can't require anything from them. 

About Switzerland and France global homicide rate, while it is slighty higher in France, it is more or less the same : 0,6 (F) and 0,57 (S) in 2012, etc... 

Except that my rethoric is not "gun cause killings", but "gun cause gun killings". Global homicide rate is not caused by gun law, nobody said that, but to a multitude of factors. What I said, is that the more gun you put in the  hand of people, the more gun killing/shooting there will be. And it can be harder to kill when you have fewer access to weapons. See the number of school shooting in the US and in country with restrictive law. You have also to see how the law is applied. Maybe I'm full of clichés, but I don't see Mexico and Russia as countries where the law are strictly applied. 

I don't believe that the means for self-defense should be restricted to the government. Breaking news : there's other way to self-defense than guns. What I believe is that to sell weapons to every people (including criminals and mentally ill people), and not require them to train a minimum to use them, is irresponsible. Guns are dangerous things, we can agree on that, and to treat them like toys is irresponsible. 

Guns don't cause gun killings; people cause gun killings.  Just as knives don't cause knife killings, or water causes murder by drowning, etc., etc.

 

Also, murderous criminals tend to be quite adept at obtaining weapons illegally.  Some of the U.S. cities with strict anti-handgun laws also had the highest gun homicide rates - committed by criminals who disregard the law.

And if you think laws and government are so effective at keeping things out of the hands of people that want them, we need only look at the wild success of the "War on Drugs," or our 1920s experiment in Prohibition.

Interesting that you claim that gun laws will prevent murders by "making it harder to kill,' yet don't apply that logic to guns for self-defense.  Cool as martial arts are, they are usually much less effective against armed attackers.  And they are especially useful for enabling physically weaker persons to defend against physically stronger attackers.  The fact is that guns have stopped far more crimes than Kung Fu.

"Gun control" simply tips the advantage in favor of the criminal thugs.

Barack Obama and other "liberal" politicians won't go out in public without their armed security detail to protect them.  Yet if they had their way, they would deny even the protection of a handgun to us plebes.  

And no one advocates treating guns like toys.  How about government treat citizens like adults, rather than children in the care of the nanny state?

[Ice_nine]

Question for the anti-gun-control folks: if hypothetically the murder rate would drastically drop if we adopted stricter gun laws, would you be against that? Is it so much so the principle of the thing?

Whether stricter gun control will be effective in decreasing homicide here in the US is debatable, maybe, just assume that it would be if you'd like to answer the question.

[dominicansoul]

I'm all for stricter gun laws, let's first unarm the security detail of all the "important people" since they are the ones calling for us peons to be without protection in this criminally insane world we live in...

 

and lets turn this around... its not even hypothetical... people who have been in active shooter situations where a victim was armed and defended themselves have survived... stricter gun laws will disarm the victims.  why is this so hard to understand?????

[vee]

my answer to this thread

[Maximilianus]

In contemplating this poll, one should consider the fate of Scut Farkus.

[Ice_nine]

 

and lets turn this around... its not even hypothetical... people who have been in active shooter situations where a victim was armed and defended themselves have survived... stricter gun laws will disarm the victims.  why is this so hard to understand?????

It's not hard to understand. People contend that with stricter gun laws it would be harder for the active shooter to obtain guns in the first place.

I guess no one is willing is willing to answer the question?

[KnightofChrist]

Question for the anti-gun-control folks: if hypothetically the murder rate would drastically drop if we adopted stricter gun laws, would you be against that? Is it so much so the principle of the thing?

Whether stricter gun control will be effective in decreasing homicide here in the US is debatable, maybe, just assume that it would be if you'd like to answer the question.

I would rather discuss actual facts or at least data. There is a fair amount of such evidence that gun control rather than reducing the over all murder rate it increases the over all murder rate. The nations, states and cities with the strictest gun control laws have highest murder rates than nations, states or cities.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Gun Control is just as ineffective and is just as much a failure as the Drug War.

[dominicansoul]

It's not hard to understand. People contend that with stricter gun laws it would be harder for the active shooter to obtain guns in the first place.

I guess no one is willing is willing to answer the question?

But how so, when its usually people who have no record in the first place that obtain the guns and go on shooting sprees?  IT's a chance we all take, right?  Criminals, murderers, we have to live amongst them, correct?  So why shouldn't decent human beings like me and you be allowed to take arms to protect us against these folks?  I am of the strong opinion that stricter gun laws only hurt decent people.  People are going nuts out there, lets get armed and prepared for them.  In every one of the active shooter scenarios of the last 20 years, if decent law abiding citizens were allowed to carry in the placess that were getting shot up, I can guarantee there would not have been bloodbaths...

[Ice_nine]

I would rather discuss actual facts or at least data. There is a fair amount of such evidence that gun control rather than reducing the over all murder rate it increases the over all murder rate.

I've also seen evidence that it reduces the murder rate. There's obviously more factors to violence than the level of gun control. But here's something you might not understand: I'm not partial to either side of the debate. I'm actually pretty open to be swayed, but refusal to answer a very simple hypothetical question doesn't really help me. I'm not really going to invest any energy into the discussion if that one, simple hypothetical question cannot be answered.