A Poll About Gun Control

[idb]

Your ignorance is exposed in your belief that it is the fault of the gun.

I can tell you've been dying to bring that meme out but you've wasted the opportunity.
I don't believe that and have never said it.

Stick it on a picture and make a clever poster instead.
Get lots of likes from your friends

Kudos for the snarky response, but my statement still holds true. You do believe it and your statement did say that.

Thank you, it was ok for a quickly flicked off sarcasm I suppose.

You believe that everyone is capable and responsible enough to carry a weapon at any time - the sole purpose when manufactured was to kill people - I don't.
That's not 'blaming the gun'.
You have blind faith in a utopia that doesn't exist.

 

[idb]

Is it?

Europe is a fairly big continent.

And most European countries have a different method of reporting crime stats. In the UK for instance a gun homicide isn't counted unless there is a conviction for that homicide. In the US, suicide by guns is counted as a gun homicide, but not in the UK.

You're absolutely right.
I wasn't going to mention that to keep the discussion simple.

No need to keep things simple. Most of us conservatives are capable of critical thinking. Unlike the liberals who can only parrot Huffpo and Media Matters' talking points.

Since you're going to revert to blanket assertions I'll point out that conservatives are the only group that tried to introduce a policy to ban the teaching of critical thinking...in your own state as well.

 

[eagle1462010]

'

Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.

The real question is: Is there any possibility that Americans can ever become civilized?

.

Hi Alfred B. Who the hell are you to tell me what I need or don't need?

I'll keep my Gun and my Bible, you can

KEEP THE CHANGE

 

[Wyld Kard]

You are welcome. We still have crime, we have gun crime, yes, but mass killings by crazed people with a gun? Doesn't happen anymore, and that is thanks to the gun control that over 90% of us supported, and still do.

So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.

Really? Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people. You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.

Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.

In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.

So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.

Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.

From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.

Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?

in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military

From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.

Really? Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people. You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.

Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.

In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.

So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.

Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.

From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.

Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?

in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military

From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.

50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm required on hand

doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo

 

[idb]

So gun control is the answer, the answer to why there is no more mass killings by crazed people with a gun in Australia.

Really? Just because there is gun control laws in your country, that does not completely guarantee that someone could not snap and do a mass killing of people. You already acknowledge that there still is gun crime in your country.

Let me point something out to you since it is obvious that you support gun control in your country and you believe that it is doing a good job.

In Switzerland almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.

So Switzerland has virtually NO GUN CRIME, because they are legally required, and Australia has gun control laws and still does have gun crime.

Maybe Australia could learn something from Switzerland.

From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.

Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?

in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military

From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.

Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.
With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.
The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.

The government will also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.

Swiss parliament gets tough in weapons debate. - swissinfo.ch

Although it is still possible for a former soldier to buy his firearm after he finishes military service, he must provide a justification for keeping the weapon and apply for a permit......When I meet Mathias, a PhD student and serving officer, at his apartment in a snowy suburb of Zurich, I realise the rules have got stricter than I imagined. Mathias keeps his army pistol in the guest room of his home, in a desk drawer hidden under the printer paper.....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007....."The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country - and for me it is an honour to take care of it. I think it is a good thing for the state to give this responsibility to people.".....

In America then, gun ownership is about self-defence whereas in Switzerland it is seen more in terms of national security. To many traditionalists, a gun in the home has become a metaphor for an independent, well-fortified Switzerland which has helped to keep the country out of two world wars...."Forty-three per cent of homicides are domestic related and 90% of those homicides are carried out with guns," he says.

In his office at Zurich University, Professor Martin Killias, director of criminology at Zurich University is flicking through research papers about gun-related homicides....
"But over the last 20 years, now that the majority of soldiers don't have ammunition at home, we have seen a decrease in gun violence and a dramatic decrease in gun-related suicides. Today we see maybe 200 gun suicides per year and it used to be 400, 20 years ago. "

Swiss citizens - for example hunters, or those who shoot as a sport - can get a permit to buy guns and ammunition, unless they have a criminal record, or police deem them unsuitable on psychiatric or security grounds. But hunters and sportsmen are greatly outnumbered by those keeping army guns - which again illustrates the difference between Switzerland and the US.

Prof Killias cannot hide his anger with those in America who use Switzerland to illustrate their argument that more gun ownership would deter or stop violence.

"We don't have a gun culture!" he snaps, waving his hand dismissively.

"I'm always amazed how the National Rifle Association in America points to Switzerland - they make it sound as if it was part of southern Texas!" he says.

"We have guns at home, but they are kept for peaceful purposes. There is no point taking the gun out of your home in Switzerland because it is illegal to carry a gun in the street. To shoot someone who just looks at you in a funny way - this is not Swiss culture!"

Street violence has gone up in recent years in Switzerland but there hasn't been an increase in gun-related incidents.

BBC News - Switzerland guns: Living with firearms the Swiss way

 

[idb]

From what I can find, the USA has vastly more guns per population than Switzerland and in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military, only to be handed out to citizens in case of an emergency.

Is the threat of being clubbed over the head by an unloaded weapon enough to deter criminals I wonder?

in Switzerland the ammunition is kept by the military

From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.

50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm required on hand

doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo

Not since 2007 sorry.
You've been misinformed.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's amazing how many people would let the nut next door keep the gun(s). Either endangering the whole community or forcing the whole community to arm themselves just for the sake of allowing one nut case to have firearms. America making sense.

It’s amazing how you could come to this thread and interject a comment that is so vapid and devoid of thought. Well, no it really isn’t.

If you had bothered to read the posts that you are trying to insult you would notice that your assertion is completely false.

I am shocked at the number of people who would prefer that a known dangerous man should be allowed to keep his guns. That shocks me. One would think that you would believe that no dangerous person be allowed to own a weapon.

I don't agree with most opinions expressed here, but I do like the discussion my question generated.

And I am not shocked that you completely misrepresented the opinion of those that you disagreed with.

Seriously, the gun control advocates lack a single fucking fact to support their asinine assertions. NOT ONE GODDAMN FACT.

I have been asking for a fact based discussion on this for going on four damn months now and no one has anything of any real substance to support assertions that you should be able to take away others rights to a firearm. Pathetic.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is because of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?

odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen

And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.

A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all. That is the most interesting point of all. The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control. Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well. Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant. You don’t take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome. Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required. Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.

 

[jon_berzerk]

From what I can find, Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people's militia for its national defense. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the militia's obligations, and so is the ammunition.

50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm required on hand

doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo

Not since 2007 sorry.
You've been misinformed.

not all of them some 2000 specialist militia members retain their ammo

 

[idb]

odd that in gun ban europe the only ones not having guns is the average honest citizen

And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.

A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all. That is the most interesting point of all. The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control. Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well. Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant. You don’t take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome. Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required. Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.

Unfortunately, living in a society means that all of your freedoms and activities are regulated to a certain degree.
I don't know that anyone sensible is calling for guns to be banned, they're calling for firearms access and ownership to be managed.

Gun advocates decry the 'use' of tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora but the fact is that they happen and they should elicit some sensible discussion of the current laws.
Circling the wagons and refusing to even consider discussion of the effectiveness of current laws is no appropriate response.

Rather than being a cheerleader for unfettered access to firearms, the NRA should be showing real leadership in the quest for a fair and measured response to such events.
When the only suggestion is to turn every school into a fortress to protect your children against your own citizens I'd suggest that your whole view is back to front.

 

[arKangel]

Sort of.

Hypothetical:

You have 100 people living in a small town, and in order to be safe (lets not question why, as this is NOT the topic of the thread) they decide to hand in their firearms.
The only person who refuses to is a man who is known to be dangerous, and is not trusted.

So. Do you a) forcibly remove the guns from that one person in order to make everyone safe, or do you b) give back guns to 99 people to protect themselves from one person?

An absurd premise.

In your hypothetical town... or any other for that matter.
I would not have handed over my firearms, period.

I have a God given right to keep them.
And "I" would never want to strip anyone of their God given right to defend themselves. So if "I" absurdly had the authority to forbid people from defending themselves, I simply wouldn't.

 

[idb]

50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm required on hand

doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo

Not since 2007 sorry.
You've been misinformed.

not all of them some 2000 specialist militia members retain their ammo

Sure, out of around 200,000.
That certainly changes the complexion of Swiss firearm ownership statistics touted by the gun advocates doesn't it?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Not since 2007 sorry.
You've been misinformed.

not all of them some 2000 specialist militia members retain their ammo

Sure, out of around 200,000.
That certainly changes the complexion of Swiss firearm ownership statistics touted by the gun advocates doesn't it?

no not really

 

[Ernie S.]

And yet the rate of gun homicides is so much less than in the USA.

A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all. That is the most interesting point of all. The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control. Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well. Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant. You don’t take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome. Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required. Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.

Unfortunately, living in a society means that all of your freedoms and activities are regulated to a certain degree.
I don't know that anyone sensible is calling for guns to be banned, they're calling for firearms access and ownership to be managed.

Gun advocates decry the 'use' of tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora but the fact is that they happen and they should elicit some sensible discussion of the current laws.
Circling the wagons and refusing to even consider discussion of the effectiveness of current laws is no appropriate response.

Rather than being a cheerleader for unfettered access to firearms, the NRA should be showing real leadership in the quest for a fair and measured response to such events.
When the only suggestion is to turn every school into a fortress to protect your children against your own citizens I'd suggest that your whole view is back to front.

OK here's your chance. In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.

 

[idb]

A fact that has nothing to do with guns at all. That is the most interesting point of all. The reality is that gun ownership seems to have absolutely zero connection to homicide rates whatsoever despite the crazy claims from those that want more gun control. Crime rates can be another discussion but suffice it to say, gun laws have no connection to lowering those as well. Some propose that gun control raises crime rates but that is rather irrelevant. You don’t take away a freedom when it has no positive outcome. Gun control advocates have to show why gun control is required. Those against it do not have to establish any positive at all.

Unfortunately, living in a society means that all of your freedoms and activities are regulated to a certain degree.
I don't know that anyone sensible is calling for guns to be banned, they're calling for firearms access and ownership to be managed.

Gun advocates decry the 'use' of tragedies like Sandy Hook and Aurora but the fact is that they happen and they should elicit some sensible discussion of the current laws.
Circling the wagons and refusing to even consider discussion of the effectiveness of current laws is no appropriate response.

Rather than being a cheerleader for unfettered access to firearms, the NRA should be showing real leadership in the quest for a fair and measured response to such events.
When the only suggestion is to turn every school into a fortress to protect your children against your own citizens I'd suggest that your whole view is back to front.

OK here's your chance. In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.

Are you saying it shouldn't be discussed - because it's hard?

 

[jon_berzerk]

not all of them some 2000 specialist militia members retain their ammo

Sure, out of around 200,000.
That certainly changes the complexion of Swiss firearm ownership statistics touted by the gun advocates doesn't it?

no not really

this only applied to government issued ammo btw

they can buy all the ammo they want subsided by the government if on a range

or more expensively if through a commercial retailer

 

[Noomi]

And I am not shocked that you completely misrepresented the opinion of those that you disagreed with.

Seriously, the gun control advocates lack a single fucking fact to support their asinine assertions. NOT ONE GODDAMN FACT.

I have been asking for a fact based discussion on this for going on four damn months now and no one has anything of any real substance to support assertions that you should be able to take away others rights to a firearm. Pathetic.

I didn't misrepresent anything. The majority of people would allow a known dangerous man to possess a firearm. That knowledge is terrifying.

 

[idb]

Sure, out of around 200,000.
That certainly changes the complexion of Swiss firearm ownership statistics touted by the gun advocates doesn't it?

no not really

this only applied to government issued ammo btw

they can buy all the ammo they want subsided by the government if on a range

or more expensively if through a commercial retailer

I've admitted I was wrong a few times...it doesn't hurt that much.
Try it now and see.
I'm not the gloating type...I promise.

 

[Noomi]

OK here's your chance. In 20 words or less, propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook.

What would have lessened the chance of it happening? Banning guns. Adam Lanza used his mothers legally registered gun to murder 26 people. If guns were banned, Lanza likely wouldn't have gotten his hands on it.

That isn't 20 words or less, but that's still a solution that had a good chance of working, whether you admit it or not.