How do you feel about guns?

[mountainhare]

James R:

How would things have been different if this kid hadn't been able to get a gun?

How would things have been different if every kid in that school had had a handgun?

 

[James R]

More people would likely have been killed.

 

[wesmorris]

it wasn't a student. i heard the guy was like 35.

 

[Neildo]

Nonetheless, the idea that a “well-regulated militia” means a body of armed citizens subject to no standards of regulation whatsoever is, frankly, a bit problematic.

------

he he...

Tiassa got you by the balls.

Really, he did? Exactly how? All he did was voice his opinion in that it's "problematic" and has nothing to do with reality in how things are.

Definition:

"mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə) pronunciation
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia#United_States

United States

There is a long history of militias in the United States, starting before the country became a country, with the colonial militias normally consisting of all adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. This practice was continued after the signing of the U.S. Constitution, and remained relatively unchanged until the late 1800s. After the Civil War, state guard units composed of select militia were created. After 1903, the militia was divided into two groups, unorganized and organized. Organized units were created from portions of the former state guards and became state National Guard units. Some states later created State Defense Forces for assistance in local emergencies. Privately organized militias, not affiliated with any government organization, and usually formed by citizens suspicious of the activities and politics of Federal and state governments, blossomed in the mid 1990s, then faded.

Unorganized, or Constitutional Militias, are citizen groups who espouse the intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States in regard to the right to keep and bear arms (see Second Amendment to the United States Constitution). Constitutional Militias train in the proper and safe use of firearms, that they may be effective if called upon to uphold liberty, protect the people in times of crisis (i.e. disasters such as Hurricane Katrina), or to defend against invasion and terrorism.

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state..." --George Mason, declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788

And law:

"10 USC 311 - “Militia: composition and classes”

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Today, a student in a Colorado high school took a number of other students hostage. He ended up shooting himself and one of his hostages. I believe he died, and his hostage is in a critical condition.

How would things have been different if this kid hadn't been able to get a gun?

It wouldn't be different because that guy would have been able to get a gun even if guns were banned. Why the hell don't you guys realize that? The only way a person won't be able to get a gun is if they all magically disappeared into thin air. Since they're all here to stay, even in countries where guns are banned, gun crime still exists.

And as Wes said, the guy wasn't a student, he was like 35. If he were a student, he wouldn't even be able to legally buy a gun anyways. If he were a kid, he would have been a criminal; one who didn't follow law. Gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals!

- N

 

[TimeTraveler]

Today, a student in a Colorado high school took a number of other students hostage. He ended up shooting himself and one of his hostages. I believe he died, and his hostage is in a critical condition.

How would things have been different if this kid hadn't been able to get a gun?

Then he would have bombed the school and killed even more people. A killer is a killer, it does not matter how they do it, what weapon they use, it's all in how their mind works and what they think of human life.

If someone is going to kill it makes absolutely no difference at all if they can get a gun or not, once they decide they are going to kill, if they can't buy a gun from a store, they will buy a gun from a thug, if they can't buy a gun from a thug, they'll build a bomb, if they can't build a bomb, they'll do something else. A destructive individual seeks to destroy, and thats about it. The kid had self destructive tendencies, and to blame it on the gun and not the kid, is just about as silly as blaming 911 on the airplanes and not the terrorists flying them!

Do you understand, that a destructive person, will use anything as a weapon? If you give more weapons to destructive people, you get more destruction, most people who are registered gun owners are ordinary citizens, and they have to go through a backround check. This is not enough for you? You'd rather they just get illegal guns with no backround check while people who are respectful of the law have to actually get turned away? You trust the criminal? This kid who took hostages was not only a criminal but a terrorist. Are you trying to say all people who want to defend themselves are terrorists?

 

[TimeTraveler]

More people would likely have been killed.

If any of us had a gun in this situation, one kid would have been killed, the kid who points his gun at people.

Now I admit, I don't want kids to have guns at all, not at all, but adults, seriously if we all had guns and one person tried to rob us, we'd all turn our guns on the aggressor out of fear and instinct.

It's foolish to me, to believe guns cause crime, it's peoples minds that cause crime. In order to be violent you have to think violently, and you also need to have the kinda personality type to actually snap, break down, or whatever it is that people do when they go into that weird psychotic state, which not everyone goes into.

Some people, they get angry and they black out. This sorta person should never have a gun, and if you think that by restricting the gun from the hands of citizens who go through backround checks will prevent unstable people from getting their hands on guns, you actually allow the balance between unstable people owning guns to outweigh the balance of stable people, because in most cases if someone does not follow the law and is a career criminal, the gun control stuff has no influence at all on them, it only influences people who have respect for the law and respect for human life.

I don't understand how people can trust criminals with guns. I just do not understand it. Please explain this to me?

It's impossible to remove guns from the streets, it's 100% impossible because the gun industry has more power than you silly gun control people, and so the guns will always be supplied into the hands of criminals who ask for them, and this is just going to end up creating an industry just like with drug control. Marijuana was made illegal and now theres more access to it than ever, more drug dealers than ever, more criminals in prison than ever. You outlaw guns and it will have the exact same effect, people will still get guns regardless of what the law says, it's a natural right. Trying to outlaw the gun is like trying to outlaw fighting, it's impossible. You can outlaw murder, but you cannot outlaw all fighting. There is a difference.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Really, he did? Exactly how? All he did was voice his opinion in that it's "problematic" and has nothing to do with reality in how things are.

Definition:

"mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə) pronunciation
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service."



And law:

"10 USC 311 - “Militia: composition and classes”

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.



It wouldn't be different because that guy would have been able to get a gun even if guns were banned. Why the hell don't you guys realize that? The only way a person won't be able to get a gun is if they all magically disappeared into thin air. Since they're all here to stay, even in countries where guns are banned, gun crime still exists.

And as Wes said, the guy wasn't a student, he was like 35. If he were a student, he wouldn't even be able to legally buy a gun anyways. If he were a kid, he would have been a criminal; one who didn't follow law. Gun control laws only affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals!

- N

You ignored well-regulated.

 

[TimeTraveler]

As an anarchist sympathizer, and one who occasionally uses the title of “-anarchist”, one of the major problems I have with anarchism is, in fact, the inability of anarchists to explain just how their utopian idyll works.

I'm no anarchist! I just do not support big government. Government does have a job, that job is defense. However, it is not the governments primary responsibiltiy to defend each and every citizen from danger on the micro-level. Government defends infastructure, commerce, corporations, and the MACRO level. Citizens defend themselves, and thats what the concept of a regulated militia comes from, and thats sorta what police have become, police are a type of militia, but the police are not the only time as there are private security firms as well which act as militias.

Hell, a rough outline would suffice. As near as I can tell, everyone is supposed to just get along because they’re smart enough to figure out that getting along is the path of least resistance. Unfortunately, people just aren’t that smart.
No one said people are smart. You see, because I assume most people aren't smart, I know that defense is important to national security, but it's also important to local security. Who is defending you?

Anarchism, then, runs into the same problem that I encounter with Communism: the individuals in the community need to understand the principles of conduct and order.

How do you have a community if you cannot defend it? If you pay people to defend the community through public fund's it's called police force, if corporations pay it's called private security. What you don't seem capable of understanding is that always, someone must defend the community and provide the security, or it simply does not exist.

These principles are fairly refined and, as Americans have shown vis a vis Marxist philosophies, not as easily understood as the Marxists would imagine. The anarchists, however, haven’t even the patience to even try.

We aren't communist, this is not the Soviet Union, or China, I mean damn you are using the communist model on the capitalist system? It cannot EVER work. Socialism only works in a limited way because it gives government control of the capitalist system, making the market less free. If you keep going in this direction you end up with either communism or facism, take your pick.

Sad to think we’re not evolved enough yet, as a species, to do the right things for the species.
Some individuals are evolved enough, maybe you aren't. That's besides the point, at some point you will have to defend yourself, and if you don't have any form of self defense, what prevents a person from just taking all you have? The police, militias, all of these entities form to protect private property. You must agree that protecting private property is the main priority of government.

As to the general issue of “CONTROL”, well, that’s a concession of living in society. I reap the benefits of this alleged civilization, and I owe it something in exchange. If I am to participate in civilized society, what I owe it is my participation. That is, I can always opt out, seek some place in some mountain range somewhere, and treat any humans I come across as wild animals. I don’t have a thing for hair shirts or loincloths. I like being able to go to the store and buy microwave-ready foods.

You are a foolish, FOOLISH consumer, you are seriously communicating like a complete domesticated house pet. You like fast food, you like processed foods?! Do you know that these same foods are destroying your health? That's because you have no food security, you have nothing to prevent you from consuming pesticides, you are completely defenseless yet you feel safe. Look at the list of ingredients on your food, and don't comment on food again until you know everything in it, and the farming process it came from. If you want to eat at Mc Donalds, enjoy your heart attack, and thank Mc Donalds for preparing your dinner.


I like having a car, and roads to drive on. I like having heat in my home without having to scavenge and compete for firewood while it’s raining cats and balls outside.
Do you seriously work for a mega-corporation? I just cannot believe that you actually think it's good that you don't have any self suffiency. You depend on corporations for everything, they make your food, they give you energy, you think they are protecting you?! Are you serious or are you just acting crazy?



Laws against rape are forms of control. But it is not just the force of law that keeps me from rape sprees; it is not the fear that someone might be armed. It is, instead, the balance of what I get from taking part in civilized society: we don’t treat each other that way, and it’s nice to not have to look over my shoulder every second of the day.

[/B] Rape is not a form of control, it's not a fundamental freedom to be able to rape people. Rape is an act of control.

So I can’t own a nuclear bomb? Fine. Why would I want to? What good would it do me? What good would it do my community?

No one said you had to own a nuclear bomb. I don't remember ever mentioning nuclear weapons. No single individual should own a nuclear weapon.

As I understand your argument, any form of regulation is unacceptable, so damn those bureaucrats that won’t let me have a nuke! Or maybe not. Why did the authorities bust that guy for manufacturing ricin? Now that’s a deterrent: “Dude, don’t rob that house, he’s got chemical weapons!” Evil authority figures, eh?
Do you understand, that chemical weapons are any chemical which does harm to the human body? This can include anything, even the plastic cup you drink out of which might have harmful chemicals that fuck up your DNA. Yeah I'm not so sure we are doing a good job protecting ourselves from chemical weapons, I actually don't know. These are the sorts of weapons that you can't really know unless the government tells you they exist or decides to protect you from it. So from this point of view, no, we might might be safe from chemical weapons, but are we safe from pollution, pesticides and everything else that is chemical and that can kill us? Hell no. If you eat processed foods you are eating chemicals and these could kill you, if you drink a Soda you could die from drinking that.

We accept control; we choose to play along according to certain rules. This is the cooperative convention. Increasing our fear in order to justify the fact that we’re frightened is counterintuitive at least, if not illogical and, functionally, downright stupid.

Being fearless is even more stupid. If you don't feed ourself, clothe yourself, get your own water, or handle anything at all, how are you different from a pet? You are only as secure as your corporations allow you to be, and corporations don't care about individuals like you.

No, but at some point society will cease being so accommodating to the stupid. It’s a waste of resources to continually run around in circles for no reason. Besides, thought control is already afoot: conservatives in Oregon got pissed off about a library book in 1990, and they haven’t stopped fighting for their right to censor ideas, publications, and living conditions; the Bush administration’s own Department of Education just got nailed in an audit for attempting to exercise too much content control in literacy programs; a conservative backlash describes a liberal conspiracy on college campuses, but the best they can come up with is mandatory thought control, apparently because it’s easier than writing responsible and supportable theses. Hell, Christianity is the foremost religion in the U.S. Islam is the fastest-growing. There’s two pronounced methods of thought control right there, and both are constitutionally protected.

Religion is not thought control, it's mind influencing, but it's not thought control. Censorship is thought control.

Tell you what, pick up your rifles, go down to the FCC, and make a stand for the First Amendment. Tell them we ought to be able to show porn on CBS at 7:00 AM on Saturdays, or you’ll fight for your offended right to free speech. At that point, I’ll reconsider the utility of an armed, unregulated, undereducated populace composed of millions of individuals each seeking their own utopia at the price of blood and death.

Why would I ever want to do that? It's my government, my FCC you are talking about here. I'm not interested in influencing the federal government or the FCC, or anything related to this. Once again you are trying to make me into an anarchist and I'm not. Are you even from America?


Look, if a handgun and a shotgun aren’t enough to defend the self, why would I want that person having a nuke, or even a grenade launcher?

Who said anything about giving out grenade launches and nukes?! why should anyone needs these weapons? But since people have them, it's already here, I honestly don't think it's our job as individuals to try and defend ourselves against those sorts of weapons. That's the governments job.


If a person sees their inability to defend themselves with a belt-fed machine gun as an offense against their liberty, the question of why looks back to that person. Why is any regulation an offense? Because it’s just about the individual? Wrong: the rules pertaining to individuals must account for the collective at some point. Why not control the criminals? Because no formula yet employed has managed to eliminate crime from society.

That's because we aren't trying to eliminate crime. Maybe if we spend billions of dollars funding anti-crime technology, or hired our own private security and private investigators we'd have a better chance at dealing with crime. The police can be easily corrupted.

You may not want a big, intrusive, controlling government to tell you how to live life, but you seem to want the rest of society to solve all your frustrations with society. Nothing’s perfect: either hop on the bus or don’t. But if you refuse to get on the bus, don’t blame the driver for not stopping.

What are you talking about?

If that many. I’ll trust anybody until they give me reason not to.


Thanks for saying that sucker. Now every scam artist knows you'll trust whatever they say and can take advantage of you. You've just exposed yourself as a sheep, why? Don't you know that there are people who prey on folks just like you? Don't you have experience?


Statistically, the result has been more favorable than being frightened until people “earn” my respect. Nonetheless, I do feel somewhat out of the norm because the number of people I can trust with my most intimate aspects numbers at least four or five, and the number of people I can trust with my life and wellbeing at any given moment is rather quite high.

You are insane, why would you trust anyone with your life?!

Had I gold fillings in my teeth, I wouldn’t swallow them if I had a heart attack: it’s not worth it to be that frightened of the paramedics who will work to save my life.

As to vague questions like, how many people can I trust to not overtly attempt to destroy our social organization, well, that number is taller than the number of people I can expect to overtly make the attempt. There are plenty of people pissed off at the U.S., for instance, but the number of folks who will actually run bombs at our buildings or try to mow us down is considerably smaller than the number of people who would, at least, try to help stop the bleeding. So that trust runs into the millions. Without that basic trust, civilized society could not exist, nor any allegation thereof.



Then trust abstractions. I live in the Seattle area, where Boeing does a lot of airplane construction and testing.

DO you work for Boeing?

Statistically, I am more likely to win the lottery than be hit by a falling airplane. I have yet to do either. I don’t generally buy lottery tickets, and I don’t worry about falling airplane parts, or even the blue ice that went crashing into some folks’ houses down in California. I can’t imagine being afraid of the people who serve me a burger and fries. Jeez, when it comes to fast food I generally ignore the notion that I ought to be suspicious of the food itself, much less whether or not Raven and Jose on the cook line remembered to wash their hands after wiping their asses.

Your ignorance amazes me! BSE, have you heard of it? I'm not saying don't eat beef, I'm saying I won't be eating it. You can eat beef but why the hell would you eat fast food beef?

Of course, a gun wouldn’t help me there, either. Am I supposed to be scared that they’re slipping dioxin into my pizza, or that I might catch some fecal disease from them?

It's very possible that they are. I doubt you'd even care. Continue eating your microwaved dinners.

In the case of the latter, am I really supposed to shoot someone for being stupid? If we shot people for mere stupidity, who the hell would run for Congress? Who would sell an insurance policy to a dentist? Who would get religion?

When did I ever advocate shooting anyone?



If you can’t figure that out, there’s no point in explaining. Seriously, guns are fairly close to the center of the discussion here. After all, didn’t you chastise me at one point for what gun owners understand and people like me don’t? Maybe the manner in which you’re frightened seems perfectly logical to you. And maybe being afraid of long hair on men seems perfectly logical to the next guy. And maybe being afraid of one’s otherwise nice neighbors who happen to be too loud on a Saturday night simply because they’re Hispanic seems perfectly logical to my neighbor.



I don’t give random homeless people free money. I give it to the ones that ask. As to giving them jobs: if I had the jobs to give, I would. Given how much people lie in order to win trust, it’s easier to just look for the lies and cross those folks off the list; in other words, it’s easy to earn trust: just don’t blow it. Devaluing trust? Messing up the economics of the web of trust? You’re the one artificially inflating the value of an inherent human trait, e.g. social cooperation, in order to justify the spread of fear. Stop screwing with the value of logic. Hell, if someone gave you gold, would you throw it out because it didn’t match the drapes?



Have fun building the aqueduct. And growing the corn. Putting out fires; yeah, a gun will help you there.

Nonetheless, you live in a part of America that needs a serious enema. At least, if people in your community are as frightened as you. Maybe we’re just in paradise up here in the Pacific Northwest.



Ah, you’re a criminal? That would explain a good deal about how frightened you are.



Judging by the tone of your rhetoric, I’m wondering when we made the transition from guns to environmentalism, or at least how a gun will ensure my water, food, and air quality. Or is this one of those things in which all you have left to do is tell me what a piece of crap you think I am?



Ah. Interesting. That actually sheds some light on your perspective.



Might as well find other ways to avoid it instead of rushing headlong into the chaos. There’s no need to work to bring about chaos in the streets in order to justify myself. That’s what I don’t get about your sense of fear. Why gallop on to the apocalypse?



Hmm … I hate mowing the lawn. I’ll choose being human.



You really don’t get it, do you?



Not quite. Adaptability is the big tool. Weaponry, as such, is at best a portion of that.



Well, there you go, then. I’ll try to finish up later.

I tried to respond to most of your post, but the majority of it, makes no sense at all. I've never seen some trust systems more than individuals, you trust corporations more than you trust people, you seem to expect Mc Donalds, Tabacco companies, and all these others to care about your health or protect you.
You seem to believe that people actually care how you feel, or about your health, well if you don't care about your health why should the corporate world?

Do you actually know how the food is processed? Do you know if the food is organic or not? Do you know if your water is clean? do you even pay attention to pollution levels, toxins, pesticides, or other things of this sort? I bet you don't even know that e coli was found in spinach just recently. Do you know about anything going on right now or do you just work to consume?

 

[TW Scott]

Let me say this again: most murders happen in the home and most murders are committed by people already known to the victim. 25% of all murders occur within the immediate family. 80% of all murders are commited by known assailants. The danger posed by unknown intruders or street assailants is relatively minor. Do you seriously think that doubling or tripling the number of guns in the home would have any positive impact on these figures? Most men use guns far more readily and with far more ease than women. 9 times out of 10 where a woman and a man engage in a face-off the woman will end up dead. The USA has the highest murder rate in the Western world. It's also the Western country where guns are most readily available. To me, there's only one possible conclusion.

Sorry but your statistics are off, per capita we do not have the highest murder rate and per capita we do not have the most firearms. In Switzerland every household is required to have an assualt rifle and lo and behold they have one of the lowest crime and murder rates around.

The truth is statisics can be manipulated anyway you like. Your numbers on murder are one of them They do not include what is known as felony murder only premeditated and by conviction at that. Which means the US catches it's murderers. Now the 9 out 10 times a woman dies in physical confrontation with a man is true, but in all of those 9 the woman did not have a firearm.

 

[TW Scott]

You ignored well-regulated.

And you ignored: The right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[wsionynw]

Sorry but your statistics are off, per capita we do not have the highest murder rate and per capita we do not have the most firearms. In Sweden every household is required to have an assualt rifle and lo and behold they have one of the lowest crime and murder rates around.

The truth is statisics can be manipulated anyway you like. Your numbers on murder are one of them They do not include what is known as felony murder only premeditated and by conviction at that. Which means the US catches it's murderers. Now the 9 out 10 times a woman dies in physical confrontation with a man is true, but in all of those 9 the woman did not have a firearm.

I suppose the question should be,why is gun murder so common in the US and not in Sweden?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Sorry but your statistics are off, per capita we do not have the highest murder rate and per capita we do not have the most firearms. In Sweden every household is required to have an assualt rifle and lo and behold they have one of the lowest crime and murder rates around.

The truth is statisics can be manipulated anyway you like. Your numbers on murder are one of them They do not include what is known as felony murder only premeditated and by conviction at that. Which means the US catches it's murderers. Now the 9 out 10 times a woman dies in physical confrontation with a man is true, but in all of those 9 the woman did not have a firearm.

That would be switserland, not sweden (the countries are only 2000km apart). Not every household is required to have an assault rifle. Those who have been in the army are required to keep the assault rifle, a Sig 550, at home for quick mobilisation purposes. The assault rifle is safely locked away (as in locked away) and so is the ammo (as in locked away). It is not allowed to be used for figthing criminals. In fact gun abuse laws in switserland are very strict.

People are encouraged to take their gun and go to a shooting range. Ammo is subsidized in switserland. That's because their army is not that large and they want well-trained people. The ammo is obtained at the gun range and cannot leave the gun range.

50 bullets are kept at home for mobilization purposes.

Each such individual keeps his army-issued personal weapon (the Sig 550 5.6 mm assault rifle for enlisted personnel, and/or the SIG-Sauer P220 9 mm semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home with a specified quantity of government-issued ammunition (50 rounds 5.6 mm / 48 rounds 9mm), sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place.

Gun control. Sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unlawful use takes place.

I'm quite happy if you would emulate switerland. But that would mean you would actually have strict gun control laws.

Or sweden.

 

[Facial]

While it's true that depriving people of guns will not stop violent crime, taking away guns will certainly increase the difficulty of performing a murder.

I remember there was a thread about this quite a while ago with various statistics posted up - much under the argument that taking away guns doesn't affect murder rates. But there's probably something wrong with that.

 

[TimeTraveler]

While it's true that depriving people of guns will not stop violent crime, taking away guns will certainly increase the difficulty of performing a murder.

I remember there was a thread about this quite a while ago with various statistics posted up - much under the argument that taking away guns doesn't affect murder rates. But there's probably something wrong with that.

How do you take guns away without lowering profits for gunmakers and weapons companies?

 

[TW Scott]

While it's true that depriving people of guns will not stop violent crime, taking away guns will certainly increase the difficulty of performing a murder.

I remember there was a thread about this quite a while ago with various statistics posted up - much under the argument that taking away guns doesn't affect murder rates. But there's probably something wrong with that.

Actually I would think murder and felony murder rates would go up. Not to mention gun death rates. You see the murderer is already breaking one crime, why not several. Besides most murderers prefer poisoning and suffocation. There is not as much physical evidence, nor aural (sound) evidence.

 

[TW Scott]

Not every household is required to have an assault rifle. Those who have been in the army are required to keep the assault rifle, a Sig 550, at home for quick mobilisation purposes. The assault rifle is safely locked away (as in locked away) and so is the ammo (as in locked away). It is not allowed to be used for figthing criminals. In fact gun abuse laws in switserland are very strict.

And yes every household becuase every man is required to joing the army.

People are encouraged to take their gun and go to a shooting range. Ammo is subsidized in switserland. That's because their army is not that large and they want well-trained people. The ammo is obtained at the gun range and cannot leave the gun range.

50 bullets are kept at home for mobilization purposes.

It is very strict about the assault rifle. But still it is in the house and by the arguments of gun control lobbyists those weapons should be contributing to a rampage of violence, but they aren't. The Swiss have a very adult view when it comes to weapons, they believe it is the individuals responsibility to keep themself in check and to protect themself.

I'm quite happy if you would emulate switerland. But that would mean you would actually have strict gun control laws.

I don't want the availibility restricted I want crimes commited with the weapon vigorously and mercilessly prosecuted. As far as I care ypou could own a howitzer, as long as you commit no wrongdoing with the Howitzer go ahead an keep it.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

That's because they have strict gun laws. Unlike the USA. Are you getting the picture????

 

[TW Scott]

That's because they have strict gun laws. Unlike the USA. Are you getting the picture????

Actually it is not becuase of the gun laws. Not at all, and they aren't all that strict except for the guns the government issued weapons. Of course they don't want unauthorized use of government ammo, so that the soldier will have it when called up. Same applies to government subsidized ammo. You'll notice they let them keep the brass, and reloading supplies are still available. Thus someone can reload ammunition. Thus they still have use of the gun. What deters crime in Switzerland is the cultural maral statute that weapons are not just a right and privilage but a responsibility. This is the same type of moral statute that law abiding gun owners in the US have. What is making this nation so dangerous is all the Political Correctness, hoplophobic politicians, and what I like to call the denialists. The people who deny that it is the individual who is the problem and instead blame an inanimate object.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Actually it is not becuase of the gun laws. Not at all, and they aren't all that strict except for the guns the government issued weapons. Of course they don't want unauthorized use of government ammo, so that the soldier will have it when called up. Same applies to government subsidized ammo. You'll notice they let them keep the brass, and reloading supplies are still available. Thus someone can reload ammunition. Thus they still have use of the gun. What deters crime in Switzerland is the cultural maral statute that weapons are not just a right and privilage but a responsibility. This is the same type of moral statute that law abiding gun owners in the US have. What is making this nation so dangerous is all the Political Correctness, hoplophobic politicians, and what I like to call the denialists. The people who deny that it is the individual who is the problem and instead blame an inanimate object.

Note that the gun is locked away.
Note that this particular assault gun is part of their equipment as a proper well-regulated militia.
Note that there are strict laws on gun abuse.
Note that guns are not considered to be used for self-defense or overthrowing the government.
Note that despite having so many guns there is less criminality than in the US.
Note that the USA has different gun laws.
Note that if it is indeed the individual who is the problem than indeed the US should have strict gun laws.
Note that someone cannot reload ammo. It is sealed. Note that gun abuse is severely punished.
Since you seem very thickheaded: note that there are strict gun laws in switserland.
Note that you need a permit for a gun in switserland.

You are indeed a denialist.

 

[TW Scott]

Note that the gun is locked away.

Yes locked away but the person still has the key.

Note that this particular assault gun is part of their equipment as a proper well-regulated militia.

Yes, which is the entire male population

Note that there are strict laws on gun abuse.

Yes, you face stiffer penalties for using guns in crimes than if you used , say, a lead pipe.

Note that guns are not considered to be used for self-defense or overthrowing the government.

Actually they are considered self defense weaponry. Or perhaps you think that defending yourself in war is stupid.

Note that despite having so many guns there is less criminality than in the US.

True, and that comes from the acceptance of guns.

Note that the USA has different gun laws.

Yes, we do. So?

Note that if it is indeed the individual who is the problem than indeed the US should have strict gun laws.

Hmmm, so we ignore that fact that Switzerland allows everyone to have weapons and their low crime meanwhile NYC allows almost no weapons and has a high crime rate. The difference is the type of law. Switzerland punishes you for misuse, NYC doesn't allow you to have.

Note that someone cannot reload ammo. It is sealed. Note that gun abuse is severely punished.

Ammo can to be reloaded you use the brass form spent shell. I have associates in Switzerland and the governement neither collects nor counts brass. They count expended rounds once tand they don't care. if you reloade the brass they don't give a shit.

Since you seem very thickheaded: note that there are strict gun laws in switserland.

Yes, there are strict laws about how much punishment you will suffer for using a gun in a crime, but otherwise none.

Note that you need a permit for a gun in switserland.

Yes, but it is a shall issue country. Like registering plates for a car. Just show you are of age, have the application fee, have no violent record and no mental instabilitiies.