Search results for query: *

No. There are levels to risk, but they can still be either necessary or unnecessary. Allowing citizens to own a vehicle is a necessary risk, and it's for the betterment of society. Allowing citizens to buy guns with little restrictions an unnecessary risk. Not rare enough not to do anything...

You're right, I don't understand that mentality. I don't understand why americans should be cautious about a tyrannt goverment. I mean, many tyrannts have the support of a large part of the people. So lets say a tyrant has has the support of most gun owners. And that's a good thing how? How do...

It's true about automatic weapons. But there are still many differences in both countries' gun laws. From what I've read: In Switzerland, military service is mandatory for men. So the average swiss man knows how to handle a gun better than the average american man. They treat guns with...

No, a risk is not a risk. That's a very ignorant statement. There are necessary risks and unnecessary risks. Also, 600 massacres a year proves the risk is not near being well controlled. No, but their easy access to them is. Laws regarding killing machines need to be strict otherwise...

Again, I didn't say you should not be able to own a gun. Just that you need to adopt what works for other countries in order to dimish the massacres. I have not seen one single good argument from pro-guns of why it's better not to follow what other countries do.

Fair enough.

I said Switzerland has "very strict gun laws and automatic weapons are banned". This is correct.

Sure, but they're not illegal. And lets say most people can't get their hands on them. That still doesn't change my point that Switzerland has stricter gun laws than the US.

And it's nonsense, since vehicles are a necessary risk. A modern society cannot function without transportation. The same cannot be said about guns, since most developed countries have strict gun laws. It's a false analogy. LOL how is it junk? Why do you think you're here in this thread...

I don't know. But that question would only be relevant if the large majority of mass shooters in the US were on anti depressants.

I'm thinking much easier than in Switzerland since they have banned them. Their country is also different from, lets say, Germany. And Germany doesn't have constant mass shootings either. The common denominator for low gun violence in developed countries is strict gun laws. No I didn't say...

Another non argument. Next.

You should. You could learn a lot. Especially in gun laws. "I don't stop driving when someone dies in a car wreck" You made a dumb, fallacious analogy.

Eh, I never said you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Taking Switzerland as an example again, the swiss love guns. They have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. It's part of their tradition. And yet, they've only had 1 mass shooting since 2001 and no school shootings ever...

Yup. His entire " bad guys targeting gun-free zones" argument is pretty silly anyway. By his logic, Europe would be a disaster when it comes to mass shootings.

LOL do you really want to argue that the US has strict gun laws compared to other developed countries? Nope, comparing vehicles to guns is a false equivalence fallacy. Sorry.

All developed countries with strict gun laws that don't have that problem disagree.

It's great you got to play Rambo and shoot the bad guys, but the large majority of americans haven't got that privilege and never will. Not to mention, the reason many americans feel the need to own a gun to defend themselves is... drumroll... Bad guys owning guns. And why do bad guys own...

Go ahead.

"A right is a right" Silly reasoning. By your logic, anything that's called a "right" is OK, no matter how atrocious it is, because it's a right. A right is a man made thing. And the large majority of americans don't need guns. Developed countries with strict gun laws don't have constant mass...