A Poll About Gun Control

[jon_berzerk]

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.

you can have as much ammo at home as one can afford

 

[arKangel]

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.

A majority of people would choose defend themselves.

Your absurd premise is an absolute misrepresentation.
Did you really think this push poll would convince anyone to give up their right to self defense?


Laughable, really.
Even in this whacky premise where you place an individual with the authority to strip such a fundamental right... you still fail!
It's hilarious!


Clearly, most people recognize this "known dangerous man" was the one who was advocating the gun control in the first place.

 

[idb]

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.

you can have as much ammo at home as one can afford

It's not in you, is it?
I said I wouldn't gloat.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

you can have as much ammo at home as one can afford

It's not in you, is it?
I said I wouldn't gloat.

why would i

ammunition is widely available

it is not like everyone has guns but no ammo

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Management that is completely ineffective. You seem to have missed that reality. Here is the truth – firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit. That management consists of tightly regulating all weapons that are machine guns and completely banning more explosive weapons such as RPGs or over the shoulder SAMs and other exotic and deadly weaponry. Regulations already exist. What the gun control advocates are asking for is MORE regulation. All I ask is that they provide a modicum of evidence that such regulation does ANYTHING to increase the safety of the populous. Such data is not provided of course because it does not exist.

Again, I reiterate, it is NOT incumbency upon those that do not want to restrict current rights to somehow prove that gun regulation will cause harm. That is not required for those that want to keep the rights that we already have. Those that want to restrict the right are required to establish a sufficient state need and the facts has established that no state need is present given that gun control simply does not work.

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.

They decry the use of incidents like Sandy Hook because they illicit emotional response without logic or facts to back them up. There is a reason that such discussions only take place when a national tragedy takes place: the facts are completely against the gun control advocates. We see the standard appeals begin to take hold even in your response. Phrases like ‘turn every school into a fortress’ are emotional garbage created to illicit an emotional response considering no one has tried to change schools into a ‘fortress.’ Instead, they mention that responsible teachers should arm themselves against this type of attack – a completely reasonable approach. Of course the advocates for control turn that into an emotional attack by parsing words and calling it a ‘fortress.’

Further, no one has advocated for ‘unfettered access’ to firearms. This is yet another complete falsehood predicated by the control advocates to avoid discussing the facts. All they are advocating for is NOT increasing the ineffective regulations. As a matter of fact, the NRA advocates for BETTER enforcement of existing regulations. That is not unfettered. There are already a myriad of protections and regulations controlling access to firearm in America.

We have had a discussion about what to do about firearms. The problem is that the losing side of that argument refuses to accept fact and instead want to impose their will on the rest of the nation so they can feel better. Fortunately, my rights are not subject to how others feel about them.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

you can have as much ammo at home as one can afford

It's not in you, is it?
I said I wouldn't gloat.

Yet here you are.

You realize that he was completely correct. The assertion that was mad was that the swiss control the ammo when you wanted to disregard the fact that they are MANDATED to have firearms and have the highest weapon ownership that I know of. That assertion was shown to be false. Not only are some mandated to have the ammo as well but it is freely available for those people to purchase.

Essentially, your assertion was wrong yet here you are asking him to admit that he was wrong. He already amended the statement that they all have government issued ammo; any further admission on his part is completely unnecessary.

 

[idb]

you can have as much ammo at home as one can afford

It's not in you, is it?
I said I wouldn't gloat.

Yet here you are.

You realize that he was completely correct. The assertion that was mad was that the swiss control the ammo when you wanted to disregard the fact that they are MANDATED to have firearms and have the highest weapon ownership that I know of. That assertion was shown to be false. Not only are some mandated to have the ammo as well but it is freely available for those people to purchase.

Essentially, your assertion was wrong yet here you are asking him to admit that he was wrong. He already amended the statement that they all have government issued ammo; any further admission on his part is completely unnecessary.

His assertion was

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

doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo

This is wrong.


The Swiss are listed as fourth highest gun ownership behind the US (far and away in the lead), Yemen and Serbia.
This may or may not be accurate but they are clearly well behind the US.

The number of people that are issued ammo are the 'specialists' that you would find in any society, including, I'm sure, the likes of Japan.
Sure, ammo is available for sale, but guns can not be carried in public without good cause (such as being one of the aforementioned specialists).
All of this clearly impacts on the actual number of firearms available for use...which doesn't correlate with the propaganda from the advocates wanting to use Switzerland as a poster child.

The culture in Switzerland is generally written as one of gun ownership for the defence of the country and sport...not self-defence.
US gun culture and Swiss gun culture can't be equated.

 

[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.

Management that is completely ineffective. You seem to have missed that reality. Here is the truth – firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit. That management consists of tightly regulating all weapons that are machine guns and completely banning more explosive weapons such as RPGs or over the shoulder SAMs and other exotic and deadly weaponry. Regulations already exist. What the gun control advocates are asking for is MORE regulation. All I ask is that they provide a modicum of evidence that such regulation does ANYTHING to increase the safety of the populous. Such data is not provided of course because it does not exist.

Again, I reiterate, it is NOT incumbency upon those that do not want to restrict current rights to somehow prove that gun regulation will cause harm. That is not required for those that want to keep the rights that we already have. Those that want to restrict the right are required to establish a sufficient state need and the facts has established that no state need is present given that gun control simply does not work.

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.

They decry the use of incidents like Sandy Hook because they illicit emotional response without logic or facts to back them up. There is a reason that such discussions only take place when a national tragedy takes place: the facts are completely against the gun control advocates. We see the standard appeals begin to take hold even in your response. Phrases like ‘turn every school into a fortress’ are emotional garbage created to illicit an emotional response considering no one has tried to change schools into a ‘fortress.’ Instead, they mention that responsible teachers should arm themselves against this type of attack – a completely reasonable approach. Of course the advocates for control turn that into an emotional attack by parsing words and calling it a ‘fortress.’

Further, no one has advocated for ‘unfettered access’ to firearms. This is yet another complete falsehood predicated by the control advocates to avoid discussing the facts. All they are advocating for is NOT increasing the ineffective regulations. As a matter of fact, the NRA advocates for BETTER enforcement of existing regulations. That is not unfettered. There are already a myriad of protections and regulations controlling access to firearm in America.

We have had a discussion about what to do about firearms. The problem is that the losing side of that argument refuses to accept fact and instead want to impose their will on the rest of the nation so they can feel better. Fortunately, my rights are not subject to how others feel about them.

How can you say this

Here is the truth – firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.

when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?

I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?

And then we get to the difference in culture.
You say that using language like turning schools into 'fortresses' is emotional language yet suggest that arming teachers is a perfectly reasonable solution.
I say that only Americans with your world view can understand the difference or even believe that the solution is perfectly reasonable.
Most other people of the world will consider that having to arm teachers and barricade children against their own citizens in a First World country is grotesque...a difference in culture? Well maybe.
In any case, whether you like the language or not, having armed teachers, armed guards, locked and reinforced entrance doors, monitored access etc (all of which have been suggested) is a fortress in my view.

The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

How can you say this

Here is the truth – firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.

when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?

I can say that because, as I have already stated, further gun controls have shown to have zero impact on homicide rates. They also have not been shown to lower crimes rates. This is universal across the planet as well as in this nation.

I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?

No, I don’t. The problem with your assertions though is that you are essentially trusting that they will not break gun laws as well. Here is a simple truth: the man that does not care about breaking the murder law is NOT going to care about breaking the gun laws. That is your basic problem, the additional law against the instrument does nothing to curb the outcomes. That individual does not care about the law in the first place.

And then we get to the difference in culture.
You say that using language like turning schools into 'fortresses' is emotional language yet suggest that arming teachers is a perfectly reasonable solution.
I say that only Americans with your world view can understand the difference or even believe that the solution is perfectly reasonable.
Most other people of the world will consider that having to arm teachers and barricade children against their own citizens in a First World country is grotesque...a difference in culture? Well maybe.

There you go again with ‘barricade’ and other such inane references. In the real world, schools almost ALWAYS have locked doors. There is a myriad of reasons for that and shootings are the LEAST of that concern. Interestingly enough, a lot of these calls ‘by the NRA’ are simple defenses to the left demanding solutions for things that are not problems. School shootings ARE NOT a problem. They are tragic but more people are beaten to death with hammers than shot at school. More children drown, are raped, molested and killed in car accidents. A littler perspective might help.
So far, we have had ONE single child fatality as a result of a school shooting this year. That is how prevalent this ‘problem’ really is. We should use last year’s data though as it gives us that absolute worst possible frame of reference considering Sandy severely weighted the numbers. In 2012, 33 children were killed as a result of school shootings. The number of students that were attending school in 2011 (I could not find reliable data on 2012 but the numbers will be close) comes in around 56.6 MILLION. That means, on our WORST year we that a risk factor around 0.0006 percent. This year it is 0.000018 percent. Is it tragic, yes. Should that number be zero, yes. Is that possible, no. you cannot eliminate all tragedy but we are damn close already.

List of school shootings in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CPS October 2011 - Detailed Tables - U.S Census Bureau
(table 1, all races and students up to 18)

In any case, whether you like the language or not, having armed teachers, armed guards, locked and reinforced entrance doors, monitored access etc (all of which have been suggested) is a fortress in my view.

The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.

That is an outright lie. Perhaps you would like to cite where the NRA has tried to ensure there is no enforcement at all.

 

[FA_Q2]

I’ll bring back my old thread referencing this subject as well as to how ineffective gun laws are. There are some revisions as I have refined the argument to reflect the data better over time but the results have proven to still ring true.

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the posters here that support gun control laws, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the dozens of threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. Comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

<revised from original>
In Washington, it seems that nothing at all happened after gun laws were passed for damn near a decade. After that they raise sharply for another decade before declining again. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law. It seems that law had no discernible effect on homicide rates at all.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernible difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

There was a spike that year (likely what predicated the ban) but the overall rate over time remained flat before spiking dramatically and falling again.


Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result. This cannot be attributed to the relaxation of the gun laws considering that they were already on the downward trend when those laws were passed but we can certainly disparage the idea that relaxing those laws had any effect in increasing the homicide rates. They continued on their downward trend. It seems that the flipside ALSO has shown that gun control does nothing for the homicide rate.

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

&#8226; 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
&#8226; 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
&#8226; 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over dozens of separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that this time will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

I have also done similar analysis of Canada and Australia where the results were the same &#8211; no effect of gun control laws. Everywhere I look, they are completely ineffective at doing anything at all. The problem here is that over the last 6 months where I have posted this LITERALLY dozens of times I have not received a single factual argument in rebuttal. That, in and of itself, is VERY telling about how the facts do not support gun control. The ONE poster that tried used Canada but then posed false numbers from a gun control biased website and a graph that was totally fabricated.

Where are the facts supporting the other side?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Management that is completely ineffective. You seem to have missed that reality. Here is the truth – firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit. That management consists of tightly regulating all weapons that are machine guns and completely banning more explosive weapons such as RPGs or over the shoulder SAMs and other exotic and deadly weaponry. Regulations already exist. What the gun control advocates are asking for is MORE regulation. All I ask is that they provide a modicum of evidence that such regulation does ANYTHING to increase the safety of the populous. Such data is not provided of course because it does not exist.

Again, I reiterate, it is NOT incumbency upon those that do not want to restrict current rights to somehow prove that gun regulation will cause harm. That is not required for those that want to keep the rights that we already have. Those that want to restrict the right are required to establish a sufficient state need and the facts has established that no state need is present given that gun control simply does not work.

They decry the use of incidents like Sandy Hook because they illicit emotional response without logic or facts to back them up. There is a reason that such discussions only take place when a national tragedy takes place: the facts are completely against the gun control advocates. We see the standard appeals begin to take hold even in your response. Phrases like ‘turn every school into a fortress’ are emotional garbage created to illicit an emotional response considering no one has tried to change schools into a ‘fortress.’ Instead, they mention that responsible teachers should arm themselves against this type of attack – a completely reasonable approach. Of course the advocates for control turn that into an emotional attack by parsing words and calling it a ‘fortress.’

Further, no one has advocated for ‘unfettered access’ to firearms. This is yet another complete falsehood predicated by the control advocates to avoid discussing the facts. All they are advocating for is NOT increasing the ineffective regulations. As a matter of fact, the NRA advocates for BETTER enforcement of existing regulations. That is not unfettered. There are already a myriad of protections and regulations controlling access to firearm in America.

We have had a discussion about what to do about firearms. The problem is that the losing side of that argument refuses to accept fact and instead want to impose their will on the rest of the nation so they can feel better. Fortunately, my rights are not subject to how others feel about them.

How can you say this

Here is the truth – firearm ownership is ALREADY managed to the maximum effective limit.

when the atrocities continue...where else in the world do they occur with such regularity?

I accept that gun ownership as a right is enshrined in the US constitution.
Do you trust everyone to have the same responsible attitude towards firearms as yourself?

of course not! We already have laws that make it illegal for felons and mentally deficient people to possess guns.
All those laws did not prevent Sandy Hook.

And then we get to the difference in culture.
You say that using language like turning schools into 'fortresses' is emotional language yet suggest that arming teachers is a perfectly reasonable solution.
I say that only Americans with your world view can understand the difference or even believe that the solution is perfectly reasonable.
Most other people of the world will consider that having to arm teachers and barricade children against their own citizens in a First World country is grotesque...a difference in culture? Well maybe.

Of course it is grotesque! we live in a grotesque society. Can you deny that having 2 or 3 trained and armed staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary school would have prevented, or at least limited the carnage in Newtown?

The man shot through the door! While he was engaged in making his entrance, it would have been relatively easy for armed guards to position themselves and pick him off as he got through the doors.
But no. You want schools to "appear" safe, not "be" safe

In any case, whether you like the language or not, having armed teachers, armed guards, locked and reinforced entrance doors, monitored access etc (all of which have been suggested) is a fortress in my view.

Fortresses are pretty safe places, are they not? Certainly safer than schools.

The NRA's calls for more effective enforcement of existing regulations is disengenuous at best, when they fight tooth and nail against any enforcement at all.

Bullshit!

Again! I would like you, or any other anti-gun Lib to propose a law that would have been 100% effective in preventing Sandy Hook.

 

[PredFan]

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.

No, I don't and naver said that I did.

That's not 'blaming the gun'.

Agreed, THAT isn't blaming the gun but that isn't what you said and what you said was in fact blaming the gun.

You have blind faith in a utopia that doesn't exist.

No, that would be you.

What's the matter? Do you have so many arguments going on at the same time that you cannot keep them straight?

 

[jon_berzerk]

It's not in you, is it?
I said I wouldn't gloat.

Yet here you are.

You realize that he was completely correct. The assertion that was mad was that the swiss control the ammo when you wanted to disregard the fact that they are MANDATED to have firearms and have the highest weapon ownership that I know of. That assertion was shown to be false. Not only are some mandated to have the ammo as well but it is freely available for those people to purchase.

Essentially, your assertion was wrong yet here you are asking him to admit that he was wrong. He already amended the statement that they all have government issued ammo; any further admission on his part is completely unnecessary.

His assertion was

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

doesnt make much sense having a firearm without ammo

This is wrong.


The Swiss are listed as fourth highest gun ownership behind the US (far and away in the lead), Yemen and Serbia.
This may or may not be accurate but they are clearly well behind the US.

The number of people that are issued ammo are the 'specialists' that you would find in any society, including, I'm sure, the likes of Japan.
Sure, ammo is available for sale, but guns can not be carried in public without good cause (such as being one of the aforementioned specialists).
All of this clearly impacts on the actual number of firearms available for use...which doesn't correlate with the propaganda from the advocates wanting to use Switzerland as a poster child.

The culture in Switzerland is generally written as one of gun ownership for the defence of the country and sport...not self-defence.
US gun culture and Swiss gun culture can't be equated.

i corrected the statement

however your assertion that the government

not giving out ammo to the militia "blows" the pro gun crowds stance on Switzerland

out of the water is ridiculous

ammo is widely available at ranges at subsidized by the government prices

for the militia

or

from commercial retailers and normal costs


Sure, ammo is available for sale, but guns can not be carried in public without good cause (such as being one of the aforementioned specialists).

here we go with another real zinger --LOL

it is quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle

to carry a loaded firearm a permit is required

however you can travel with a firearm and ammo if it separated

and if you have a reason

one of the following reasons

For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,

(this one is neat)
To show the gun to a friend or a possible buyer

To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, i.e. gun shows


and of course according to their law none of these need to be a direct route

personally i do not like to use the Swiss as an example since if we adopted their laws

we would be losing the rights we currently have

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I did some similarly-minded research on this matter and found where the numbers in the U.S. just do not support the paranoid claims of those wanting to restrict the 2nd Amendment. And damn if I didn't lose the work I put into it. The FBI statistics on violent crime show that states that have the most restrictions tend to have the most violent crime, while states that have the least restrictions tend to have the least. The disparities may not be enormous, but they are clear.

Here are the five states that are commonly regarded to have the most gun control, along with percentage of violent crimes reported per population, rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent:

CA 0.4%
NJ 0.3%
MA 0.4%
HA 0.3%
CT 0.3%

Conversely, the same data for the five states commonly regarded as having the least gun control shows:

AZ 0.4%
ID 0.2%
VT 0.2%
MS 0.3%
KY 0.2%

Is this an enormous disparity? No. However, one of the arguments for gun control is that more guns = more violence. It does no good to try and compare the U.S. with other countries, not with much relevance anyway. Different countries, different situations. The same policies would not create the same effects. However, what we can do is compare states within the U.S., and the data is clear. States with less gun restriction have a little less violent crime than states that have more.

Source:
FBI ? Table 5

 

[PredFan]

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&#8217;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.

Bull shit. Some possibly, not all.

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.

Both those who call for guns to be banned and those who call for guns to be "managed" are wrong. Managing guns does nothing to stop crime. that bogus claim has been shot down too many times to count.

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.

Wrong again. These things happen despite all of the current laws and will not be stopped or even slowed by additional laws. The only thing that will happen is that the people who won't break the law, and are sane enough not to kill large numbers of people will be the ones unarmed. until you can show how crazy people and crimianls would obey gun laws, you have no ground to stand on.

Circling the wagons and refusing to even consider discussion of the effectiveness of current laws is no appropriate response.

Wrong yet again. We are willing to, and have been discussing the effectiveness of current laws, it's just that we aren't giving you what you want because you are wrong. Current laws are ineffective and more laws will also be ineffective. You don't like not getting what you want so you keep demanding it despite the mountain of evidence that you are wrong.

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.

Strawman argument not deserving of a response.

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.

Another strawman mixed with childish hyperbole. You have been measured and found lacking.

 

[FA_Q2]

I did some similarly-minded research on this matter and found where the numbers in the U.S. just do not support the paranoid claims of those wanting to restrict the 2nd Amendment. And damn if I didn't lose the work I put into it. The FBI statistics on violent crime show that states that have the most restrictions tend to have the most violent crime, while states that have the least restrictions tend to have the least. The disparities may not be enormous, but they are clear.

Here are the five states that are commonly regarded to have the most gun control, along with percentage of violent crimes reported per population, rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent:

CA 0.4%
NJ 0.3%
MA 0.4%
HA 0.3%
CT 0.3%

Conversely, the same data for the five states commonly regarded as having the least gun control shows:

AZ 0.4%
ID 0.2%
VT 0.2%
MS 0.3%
KY 0.2%

Is this an enormous disparity? No. However, one of the arguments for gun control is that more guns = more violence. It does no good to try and compare the U.S. with other countries, not with much relevance anyway. Different countries, different situations. The same policies would not create the same effects. However, what we can do is compare states within the U.S., and the data is clear. States with less gun restriction have a little less violent crime than states that have more.

Source:
FBI ? Table 5

Thanks for the information. It is interesting – and more nails in the coffin of the false claim that gun control works – but I don’t even think state to state comparisons are very good. While country to country has far more variables than state to state, the various states are also quite different. For instance, Arizona has an EXTREMELY different set of circumstances based solely on the fact that it is a border state to Mexico than, say, Michigan. It is nearly impossible to control for the major differences in the states due to the border let alone other variables like population density and cultural differences. That is why I stick with the before and after snapshots. While that in no way accounts for everything (there are other changes that occur in the various years that the data looks at) it does make the closest comparison that is possible.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

I did some similarly-minded research on this matter and found where the numbers in the U.S. just do not support the paranoid claims of those wanting to restrict the 2nd Amendment. And damn if I didn't lose the work I put into it. The FBI statistics on violent crime show that states that have the most restrictions tend to have the most violent crime, while states that have the least restrictions tend to have the least. The disparities may not be enormous, but they are clear.

Here are the five states that are commonly regarded to have the most gun control, along with percentage of violent crimes reported per population, rounded to the nearest 10th of a percent:

CA 0.4%
NJ 0.3%
MA 0.4%
HA 0.3%
CT 0.3%

Conversely, the same data for the five states commonly regarded as having the least gun control shows:

AZ 0.4%
ID 0.2%
VT 0.2%
MS 0.3%
KY 0.2%

Is this an enormous disparity? No. However, one of the arguments for gun control is that more guns = more violence. It does no good to try and compare the U.S. with other countries, not with much relevance anyway. Different countries, different situations. The same policies would not create the same effects. However, what we can do is compare states within the U.S., and the data is clear. States with less gun restriction have a little less violent crime than states that have more.

Source:
FBI ? Table 5

Thanks for the information. It is interesting – and more nails in the coffin of the false claim that gun control works – but I don’t even think state to state comparisons are very good. While country to country has far more variables than state to state, the various states are also quite different. For instance, Arizona has an EXTREMELY different set of circumstances based solely on the fact that it is a border state to Mexico than, say, Michigan. It is nearly impossible to control for the major differences in the states due to the border let alone other variables like population density and cultural differences. That is why I stick with the before and after snapshots. While that in no way accounts for everything (there are other changes that occur in the various years that the data looks at) it does make the closest comparison that is possible.

That's a good point about AZ. I live here and if it weren't for the border areas I am convinced the violent crime would be closer to the other states on the same list.

I agree the comparison is not perfect, but at least comparing states puts the comparison within the context of the same federal constitution.

 

[peach174]

Noomie
Your Country banned guns and rape & theft went up.
Banning guns does not get rid of criminal activity.
All it does is make the Politicians feel safer and leaves your Citizens defenseless against criminals.

Americans have a 2nd Amendment that gives them the right to defend themselves.

 

[Smilebong]

Noomie
Your Country banned guns and rape & theft went up.
Banning guns does not get rid of criminal activity.
All it does is make the Politicians feel safer and leaves your Citizens defenseless against criminals.

Americans have a 2nd Amendment that gives them the right to defend themselves.

And the 2nd amendment was not written by a bunch of stupid, uneducated morons. They knew what they were doing, and I agree with their wording, even though there are times that it is not as clear as people might like.

[MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION], my friend, please do not take this as a personal attack, but I am a 2nd Amendment rights advocate and will stand with those who promote it. I will not bad mouth you. You have been very kind and a friend to me, and I hope we can agreeably not see eye to eye on this.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's a good point about AZ. I live here and if it weren't for the border areas I am convinced the violent crime would be closer to the other states on the same list.

I agree the comparison is not perfect, but at least comparing states puts the comparison within the context of the same federal constitution.

Very likely. The border area drags the entire state down with the large amounts of drug trafficking that is done through there. It truly is a mess. It is those nuances that really make comparisons across differing geological areas quite difficult. It’s why I deplore comparisons against places like England. The differences are so vast that any comparisons are meaningless (as you pointed out earlier). Even the method that crime is reported is completely different.