Gun Totting Catholic? Disagree with The Church on Gun Control

[bearer]

The damned truth is that both sides engaged in all sorts of deliberate misinformation about military strategy. As all good armies do.

Those ‘plans’ to invade Switzerland could have been as real as the fake Allied ‘plans’ for D-day that fooled the Nazis into sending forces to the wrong part of France.

Another damned truth is that there was no way they were ever going to admit ‘oh yeah, we have a lot of war loot stashed in Switzerland and that’s why we’re not invading …’ - I mean may as well give whoever reads that the account numbers and passcodes while you’re at it!

You’ve established your bias against gun ownership and ignorance of the facts surrounding the use of arms.

Are you listening to yourself? They had loot in the country so they decided not to invade? As if they couldn’t roll in and seize the banks?

IT WAS THE GUNS…

 

[austenbosten]

You’ve established your bias against gun ownership and ignorance of the facts surrounding the use of arms.

Are you listening to yourself? They had loot in the country so they decided not to invade? As if they couldn’t roll in and seize the banks?

IT WAS THE GUNS…

@LillyM: You really are sounding deluded. There were plans to invade Switzerland, there are countless accounts from German generals about Hitlers invasion plans.

@Bearer: That was part of the reason, but the other reason’s were,

• It would involve a large invasion force and a large garrison force that Germany was not able to provide
• Mountainous regions would have caused unspeakable casualties on German side
• Swiss citizens were the army and were well-armed and trained
• Swiss were just as fanatical about Democracy and Freedom, as the Germans were about Nazism
• Swiss were already allowing the Germans to use their rail-lines, invading Switzerland would have guaranteed those lines would have been destroyed and months wasted rebuilding them
• Its costs would outweigh any benefits of conquering Switzerland.

So yes gun ownership did play a large part, but it wasn’t the only part.

 

[LilyM]

You’ve established your bias against gun ownership and ignorance of the facts surrounding the use of arms.

Are you listening to yourself? They had loot in the country so they decided not to invade? As if they couldn’t roll in and seize the banks?

IT WAS THE GUNS…

Of course it was the guns. That’s why no-one ever robs gun stores It couldn’t have had anything to do with the near-military level of training of the owners of those guns?

Yet again, I am not against gun ownership - we have three guns in my household. Not mine. Used strictly for hunting. I don’t have a problem with that, I’ve grown up around folks with guns. FOR HUNTING!

As for self-defence purposes, a gun is really useful only in the hand of a well trained user. Preferably professionals such as police or military, or near-as like those Swiss.Like I said, someone who knows how to shoot back at someone who is shooting at them. Not your average American.

For your average American, you’d prbably be just as well off, or better off, with a good alarm system and security screens for the house, capsicum spray, a baseball bat, a good guard dog or a combination of the above.

 

[bearer]

@Bearer: That was part of the reason, but the other reason’s were,

• It would involve a large invasion force and a large garrison force that Germany was not able to provide
• Mountainous regions would have caused unspeakable casualties on German side
• Swiss citizens were the army and were well-armed and trained
• Swiss were just as fanatical about Democracy and Freedom, as the Germans were about Nazism
• Swiss were already allowing the Germans to use their rail-lines, invading Switzerland would have guaranteed those lines would have been destroyed and months wasted rebuilding them
• Its costs would outweigh any benefits of conquering Switzerland.

So yes gun ownership did play a large part, but it wasn’t the only part.

That’s fair.

 

[LilyM]

That’s fair.

It wasn’t the guns man, it was a pathological fear of cuckoo clocks! And yodelling! And fondue!

 

[austenbosten]

Of course it was the guns. That’s why no-one ever robs gun stores It couldn’t have had anything to do with the near-military level of training of the owners of those guns?

Yet again, I am not against gun ownership - we have three guns in my household. Not mine. Used strictly for hunting.

As for self-defence purposes, a gun is useful only in the hand of a well trained user. Preferably professionals such as police or military, or near-as like those Swiss.Like I said, someone who knows how to shoot back at someone who is shooting at them. Not your average American. For your average American, you’d be just as well off with a good alarm system, capsicum spray, a baseball bat, a good guard dog or a combination of the above.

Would you then argue that the answer is not “gun control” but “gun education”?

Meaning in order to purchase a firearm you must take a mandatory training in firearm lessons?

 

[austenbosten]

It wasn’t the guns man, it was a pathological fear of cuckoo clocks! And yodelling! And fondue!

No no NO!! It was the Vatican Swiss Guard. Nothing terrifies an army more than big poofy flumes on those 15th century steel helmets and those colorful baggy pants and the pike!

 

[LilyM]

Would you then argue that the answer is not “gun control” but “gun education”?

Meaning in order to purchase a firearm you must take a mandatory training in firearm lessons?

Got it in one. At a much higher level than most licences currently require. As well as regular refresher training in gun use (and gun safety as well, while we’re at it).

 

[bearer]

Of course it was the guns. That’s why no-one ever robs gun stores It couldn’t have had anything to do with the near-military level of training of the owners of those guns?

Yet again, I am not against gun ownership - we have three guns in my household. Not mine. Used strictly for hunting.

As for self-defence purposes, a gun is useful only in the hand of a well trained user. Preferably professionals such as police or military, or near-as like those Swiss.Like I said, someone who knows how to shoot back at someone who is shooting at them. Not your average American. For your average American, you’d be just as well off with a good alarm system, capsicum spray, a baseball bat, a good guard dog or a combination of the above.

You’ve already demonstrated that you’re unfamiliar with American gun culture, other than what you would tend to read in the newspaper. What do you know about training and qualifications of the average American gun owner? It’s a rare day any time of the year that there isn’t a wait for shooting time at any of the half-dozen shooting ranges I visit in a tri-state area. Millions of shooters, millions of hunters, thousands of shooting competitions per year.

I’ve heard a number of non-enthusiasts claim that military and police training is what qualifies good shooters, yet most civilian gun owners spend more time training than soldiers and police. Most soldiers (over 80%) are in support roles that do not involve the regular use of weapons, and most police officers only visit the range a handful of times per year. There is no shortage of academic literature by experts on this.

According to the GAO, in the Iraq War the U.S. military fired 250,000 rounds for every insurgent killed. Could you imagine if American civilians had that kind of record? There would be bullet holes in just about every building across the country.

As for other weapons, including non-lethals: 1) capsicum has a very poor record of effectiveness. You’re as likely to get spray in your own eyes as you are to get it in the eyes of your attacker, and doesn’t even incapacitate most attackers, especially those on stimulant drugs or even natural adrenaline. Weather, face masks, sunglasses, and many other factors play into the lack of efficacy of such sprays. That’s one reason police have begun to use tasers in its place. Tasers are expensive and also have a spotty record, although they are rarely used against the officer employing it; 2) if you’re close enough to use a bat, you’re close enough to be shot, stabbed, or have your bat taken away and used against you. Violent criminals don’t play fair; and 3) guard dogs are expensive, require lengthy training, and can be killed more easily than you can.

I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again. You are out of your field of expertise here.

 

[maryjk]

As for self-defense purposes, a gun is really useful only in the hand of a well trained user. Preferably professionals such as police or military, or near-as like those Swiss.Like I said, someone who knows how to shoot back at someone who is shooting at them. Not your average American.

Do you know how often “the police” practice with their gun? Around here, once a year. Yep, one time every 365 days. That is unless they want to pay for the practice themselves.

Do you know how often my father used to practice? EVERY weekend. Yep, 52 times a year. And sometimes in the middle of the week. If I wanted to practice? All I had to do was go up to his house and do it.

Now it is a little more difficult. Dad isn’t with us anymore, so I have to find somewhere else to practice.

For your average American, you’d prbably be just as well off, or better off, with a good alarm system and security screens for the house, capsicum spray, a baseball bat, a good guard dog or a combination of the above.

How about all of the above AND a weapon.

Who in the heck wants to rely on an alarm system? The alarm has to go off for 60 seconds before the company reacts. Then they call you. If you don’t answer, then they call the cops. By that time, your guard dog has lost his mind with the screech of the alarm.

Of course you could wait until the intruder is close enough to try to hit with pepper spray, but make sure you protect your eyes, otherwise you will end up as incapacitated as the intruder. If you think a gun can be used against you, don’t try to use a bat. It is much easier to take a bat off someone up close and personal than a gun.

I guess you could rely on security screens, but really, a knife will pop those out in 10 seconds.

So, yes, you want all of them. Slow them down with good door locks and windows. Your dog should start barking then. If they make it past that, the alarm might scare them away, but if it doesn’t, at least you know the cops are on their way.

I wouldn’t try the pepper spray or the bat, they have to get too close for that. But if you do have a gun in the house and it is a pump action shotgun, I would turn the alarm off so the intruder can hear you racking a shell. If the alarm didn’t slow them down, that sound might.

 

[LilyM]

You’ve already demonstrated that you’re unfamiliar with American gun culture, other than what you would tend to read in the newspaper. What do you know about training and qualifications of the average American gun owner? It’s a rare day any time of the year that there isn’t a wait for shooting time at any of the half-dozen shooting ranges I visit in a tri-state area. Millions of shooters, millions of hunters, thousands of shooting competitions per year.

I’ve heard a number of non-enthusiasts claim that military and police training is what qualifies good shooters, yet most civilian gun owners spend more time training than soldiers and police. Most soldiers (over 80%) are in support roles that do not involve the regular use of weapons, and most police officers only visit the range a handful of times per year. There is no shortage of academic literature by experts on this.

According to the GAO, in the Iraq War the U.S. military fired 250,000 rounds for every insurgent killed. Could you imagine if American civilians had that kind of record? There would be bullet holes in just about every building across the country.

As for other weapons, including non-lethals: 1) capsicum has a very poor record of effectiveness. You’re as likely to get spray in your own eyes as you are to get it in the eyes of your attacker. Weather, face masks, sunglasses, and many other factors play into the lack of efficacy of such sprays. That’s one reason police have begun to use tasers in its place. Tasers are expensive and also have a spotty record, although they are rarely used against the officer employing it; 2) if you’re close enough to use a bat, you’re close enough to be shot, stabbed, or have your bat taken away and used against you. Violent criminals don’t play fair; and 3) guard dogs are expensive, require lengthy training, and can be killed more easily than you can.

I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again. You are out of your field of expertise here.

It says much about the sad state of your police and military if that is the case - doesn’t mean the civilians are in any way adequately prepared to defend themselves with their guns. Those Swiss civilians would be better prepared, it seems.

From your vast experience, how well do those gun ranges simulate the experience of shooting at a live human being, one who is shooting back at you no less? Shooting an inanimate target is surely a very different thing.

I’d venture that while those cops and soldiers may spend less time on the range, but that they do different TYPES of training, both on and off the range, types that far better replicate the experience of shooting at an armed criminal, than the average civilian.

 

[bearer]

It says much about the sad state of your police and military if that is the case - doesn’t mean the civilians are in any way adequately prepared to defend yourself. Those Swiss civilians would be better.

Bwahahahahahaha! Our military’s track record in terms of conflicts won and enemies killed speaks for itself.

You keep trying to smear our civilian gun owners, but all you come up with us one logical fallacy after another. Your posts don’t mean that civilians are in any way unprepared to defend themselves.

From your vast experience, how well do those gun ranges simulate the experience of shooting at a live human being, one who is shooting back at you no less? Shooting an inanimate target is surely a very different thing.

That’s a valid and critical point. But the range is where you start. Marksmanship is the first part of shooting well when you need to. Keep in mind that we also employ dry fire drills and simulated combat (using paintball guns, Airsoft guns, and if you can get it, Simunition used in real guns).

Many of us also follow the Nutnfancy Project and utilize ranges in which we shoot under pressure in realistic terrain at targets at unknown distances. That’s a been a big help to soldiers, law enforcement officers, security contractors, and civilians who enjoy such training in their off-time.

I’d venture that while those cops and soldiers may spend less time on the range, but that they do different TYPES of training, both on and off the range, types that far better replicate the experience of shooting at an armed criminal, than the average civilian.

No, that’s not the case. The vast majority of training is shooting at standard stationary bullseye or silhouette targets at known distances. Most military and police ranges are virtually indistinguishable from civilian ranges.

 

[shipwrkd]

It wasn’t the guns man, it was a pathological fear of cuckoo clocks! And yodelling! And fondue!

Now your starting to make sense

No no NO!! It was the Vatican Swiss Guard. Nothing terrifies an army more than big poofy flumes on those 15th century steel helmets and those colorful baggy pants and the pike!

And maybe just a little bit the highly accurate SIG SG550’s

Switzerland has had 600 years of peace, order and good government and all they’ve given the world is the cuckoo clock!

Hey, what about the Swiss Army knife

I’m gonna hang around just to see who gets the last word

 

[Mickey_Finn]

You really are a piece of work, Lily. Truth be damned, you just cannot bring yourself to admit that arms keep the peace, can you?

The Germans did plan to invade Switzerland; the plans were named Operation Tannenbaum. In a memorandum on the proposed invasion, SS General Hermann Böhme, who worked on plans for the invasion, wrote that because Switzerland was a nation of rifleman, any such invasion would be too costly in terms of German lives.

I believe Lily is right about the swiss bank accounts. There is no doubt, the Swiss worked with the Nazi’s, before and during the second world war. Not too long ago, they were questioned about the money from jews that they kept after the holocaust. For years they denied these monies and made interest on them. They blocked every effort of holocaust survivors, and their relatives, to recover their wealth. Not to admirable if you ask me.

ATB

 

[bearer]

I believe Lily is right about the swiss bank accounts. There is no doubt, the Swiss worked with the Nazi’s, before and during the second world war. Not too long ago, they were questioned about the money from jews that they kept after the holocaust. For years they denied these monies and made interest on them. They blocked every effort of holocaust survivors, and their relatives, to recover their wealth. Not to admirable if you ask me.

ATB

You are correct about the financial relations, but the SS’ and Wehrmacht’s own documents on the invasion plans cite the military factors, such as civilian gun ownership and high projected German military losses, as the primary reasons not to carry through with the attack.

 

[LilyM]

Bwahahahahahaha! Our military’s track record in terms of conflicts won and enemies killed speaks for itself.

Enemy killed per US soldier serving in the area of conflict? In face-to-face combat? With those US soldiers using like weaponry as the enemy? With like backup and support services as the enemy?

You keep trying to smear our civilian gun owners, but all you come up with us one logical fallacy after another. Your posts don’t mean that civilians are in any way unprepared to defend themselves.

At most it means they’re better prepared than your police and military Which frankly sounds like it isn’t saying much.

That’s a valid and critical point. But the range is where you start. Marksmanship is the first part of shooting well when you need to. Keep in mind that we also employ dry fire drills and simulated combat (using paintball guns, Airsoft guns, and if you can get it, Simunition used in real guns).

It’s a start. But to be effective you need to start and finish well. No point patting yourself on the back for running a fantastic first 100 metres when the race is a marathon.

Many of us also follow the Nutnfancy Project and utilize ranges in which we shoot under pressure in realistic terrain at targets at unknown distances. That’s a been a big help to soldiers, law enforcement officers, security contractors, and civilians who enjoy such training in their off-time.

No, that’s not the case. The vast majority of training is shooting at standard stationary bullseye or silhouette targets at known distances. Most military and police ranges are virtually indistinguishable from civilian ranges.

I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that the US military and police would use more of the dry fire, simulated combat etc than the average civilian shooter.

See, I get what you’re saying, but who exactly is this ‘we’ and this ‘many’ you’re talking about who frequently uses ranges and does the simulated combat, dry-fire etc? What sort of numbers of people are we talking about? And how often would y’all be doing these sort of activities on average?

Where I’m from most if not all of this would be well out of the price range of the average citizen, so simply would not be done a regular basis. And so would still be ill prepared to fire at an armed criminal.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

You’ve established your bias against gun ownership and ignorance of the facts surrounding the use of arms.

Are you listening to yourself? They had loot in the country so they decided not to invade? As if they couldn’t roll in and seize the banks?

IT WAS THE GUNS…

Even today, the Swiss could not put up much of a fight. Lets not forget that the vast majority of Swiss citizens are German. To say that they intimidated the Nazi’s who had just ran over poland. Well, it’s not realistic.

cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sz.html

ATB

 

[reconman]

It says much about the sad state of your police and military if that is the case.

You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. We have the most effective military on the planet.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. We have the most effective military on the planet.

Sorry LilyM, can’t help you here.

ATB

 

[LilyM]

You keep digging a deeper hole for yourself. We have the most effective military on the planet.

I did actually ask some questions too, rather than just criticising. In case you didn’t notice.

And if you have any answers for them instead of just sniping back at me that’d be helpful as well.

Since you are so adamant that I am wrong, you must be bursting at the seams with facts and figures to prove me wrong. So have at it.

Thanks.