A Poll About Gun Control

[numan]

".....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...."

Why -- GASP!! -- that appears to be the purpose of owning guns in the USA -- as described in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution!!! · ·

.

 

[idb]

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.

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.

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.

Does Japan's experience on gun control not show anything at all to you?
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic


If school shootings are such a minor problem, why did you say earlier that arming teachers would be a reasonable response?
As I wrote, it may be a difference in culture, but I doubt that most other Western countries would agree that having to arm their teachers is reasonable at all.

Just one example of the NRA's mission to limit enforcement is their continuing campaign against the appointment of a director for the ATF, and their demonising of its officers.


For your information, and for some clarity on my position;
I own guns, I want to continue to own guns and I don't advocate banning guns.
I advocate a sensible and grown-up discussion about the availability of firearms.
It may be, at the end of it your argument prevails and nothing substantial changes, and maybe everyone agrees putting money to enforcing the current regulations is the way to go.

You're damned right the deaths of children at school is an emotional issue - it can't fail to be and if it doesn't cause some discussion and soul-searching I don't know what will.

On the other hand, since I don't live in the US I have no direct vested interest either way - but I can't fail to be moved by the news of shooting events when they happen.

If many of the same people that say that gun controls can't work while these shootings are happening, can spend time, money and effort to create laws to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem - well - where are the priorities?

Please excuse the fractured reply, I've tried to cover a lot of points.

 

[idb]

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.

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


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

Members of the Swiss army keep their weapons – fully automatic assault rifles or pistols – and a small emergency supply of ammunition at home. According to the Swiss Constituition, upon completion of all required military service, the gun becomes the property of the individual soldier. Assault rifles are then transformed into semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, military-issue weapons, often generations old, are kept in Swiss households.

Gun Owners of Vermont | Gun Ownership in Switzerland

Yeah [MENTION=39578]Wildcard[/MENTION] , except that letter's dated 1995 and the law was changed in 2007.

 

[Ernie S.]

How can you say this
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.

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.

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)

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

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.

Does Japan's experience on gun control not show anything at all to you?
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic


If school shootings are such a minor problem, why did you say earlier that arming teachers would be a reasonable response?
As I wrote, it may be a difference in culture, but I doubt that most other Western countries would agree that having to arm their teachers is reasonable at all.

Just one example of the NRA's mission to limit enforcement is their continuing campaign against the appointment of a director for the ATF, and their demonising of its officers.


For your information, and for some clarity on my position;
I own guns, I want to continue to own guns and I don't advocate banning guns.
I advocate a sensible and grown-up discussion about the availability of firearms.
It may be, at the end of it your argument prevails and nothing substantial changes, and maybe everyone agrees putting money to enforcing the current regulations is the way to go.

You're damned right the deaths of children at school is an emotional issue - it can't fail to be and if it doesn't cause some discussion and soul-searching I don't know what will.

On the other hand, since I don't live in the US I have no direct vested interest either way - but I can't fail to be moved by the news of shooting events when they happen.

If many of the same people that say that gun controls can't work while these shootings are happening, can spend time, money and effort to create laws to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem - well - where are the priorities?

Please excuse the fractured reply, I've tried to cover a lot of points.

So, you can't propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook? If you think there is some magic law, any more effective than the other 100,000 gun laws, give us a quick description. If it has promise, I'll even write my Congressmen asking for their support.

 

[idb]

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

Does Japan's experience on gun control not show anything at all to you?
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic


If school shootings are such a minor problem, why did you say earlier that arming teachers would be a reasonable response?
As I wrote, it may be a difference in culture, but I doubt that most other Western countries would agree that having to arm their teachers is reasonable at all.

Just one example of the NRA's mission to limit enforcement is their continuing campaign against the appointment of a director for the ATF, and their demonising of its officers.


For your information, and for some clarity on my position;
I own guns, I want to continue to own guns and I don't advocate banning guns.
I advocate a sensible and grown-up discussion about the availability of firearms.
It may be, at the end of it your argument prevails and nothing substantial changes, and maybe everyone agrees putting money to enforcing the current regulations is the way to go.

You're damned right the deaths of children at school is an emotional issue - it can't fail to be and if it doesn't cause some discussion and soul-searching I don't know what will.

On the other hand, since I don't live in the US I have no direct vested interest either way - but I can't fail to be moved by the news of shooting events when they happen.

If many of the same people that say that gun controls can't work while these shootings are happening, can spend time, money and effort to create laws to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem - well - where are the priorities?

Please excuse the fractured reply, I've tried to cover a lot of points.

So, you can't propose a law that would have prevented Sandy Hook? If you think there is some magic law, any more effective than the other 100,000 gun laws, give us a quick description. If it has promise, I'll even write my Congressmen asking for their support.

I never said it was easy, it might not even be possible - so everyone should just give up and accept things the way they are?

 

[Ernie S.]

Well, that's a better alternative than another ineffective law that only serves to restrict the rights of people who would never consider shooting up a school.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

it is pretty east to extrapolate the information from the 2013 cdc report on gun violence

to understand that between 500 thousand upwards of 2 million times the gun was used to

defend against a criminal

that if the gun was was removed from tht honest citizens

that incidence of rape and violent crime would rise

 

[Skull Pilot]

'

Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.

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

.

Show me any country on this planet where there is no chance of being the victim of a violent crime.

People have proven over millions of years that they are a violent species via countless acts of murder rape and other assorted acts of violence.

To blithely deny that is beyond ludicrous

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'

Civilized people in civilized countries do not need guns.

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

.

No, the real question is can Americans come to terms with its woefully inadequate mental health policies and the inherently violent nature of its society.

Gun violence and crime is a consequence of those mentally ill acting in the context of a society that perceives violence as a legitimate means of conflict resolution, not the presence or availability of guns.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.

Then you're denying reality. The government supplied statistics have been provided here and elsewhere numerous times. They prove without a doubt that violent crime increased following the ban.



Which was only the case after the ban. Again, you can choose to deny reality, but it's not helping your case.

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?

I'm suggesting there is no way the gun grabbers can associate civilian firearm ownership with violent crime rates. So please, leave law abiding citizens alone and focus on those that actually harm others.

Please, I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.

Incorrect.

According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.

Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).

The following year, homicides were up another 20%.

That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.

As gun advocates have said many times...if someone is going to commit violence and they haven't got a gun then they'll use a different weapon.

Or they'll just find a firearm. Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?

 

[FA_Q2]

How can you say this
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.

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.

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)

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

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.

Does Japan's experience on gun control not show anything at all to you?
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic


If school shootings are such a minor problem, why did you say earlier that arming teachers would be a reasonable response?
As I wrote, it may be a difference in culture, but I doubt that most other Western countries would agree that having to arm their teachers is reasonable at all.

Just one example of the NRA's mission to limit enforcement is their continuing campaign against the appointment of a director for the ATF, and their demonising of its officers.


For your information, and for some clarity on my position;
I own guns, I want to continue to own guns and I don't advocate banning guns.
I advocate a sensible and grown-up discussion about the availability of firearms.
It may be, at the end of it your argument prevails and nothing substantial changes, and maybe everyone agrees putting money to enforcing the current regulations is the way to go.

You're damned right the deaths of children at school is an emotional issue - it can't fail to be and if it doesn't cause some discussion and soul-searching I don't know what will.

On the other hand, since I don't live in the US I have no direct vested interest either way - but I can't fail to be moved by the news of shooting events when they happen.

If many of the same people that say that gun controls can't work while these shootings are happening, can spend time, money and effort to create laws to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem - well - where are the priorities?

Please excuse the fractured reply, I've tried to cover a lot of points.

No, Japan’s situation says nothing at all about gun control because you DO NOT have a control case to compare it to. Japan has always had strict weapon controls afaik so we have no clue as to how effective it has been. Further, Japan’s laws only work at all because the police there have broad search and seizure powers essentially allowing them to search anything they want and confiscate at will. Essentially, those freedoms that we recognize in the fourth amendment are foreign concepts there. Japan’s extremely low homicide rate (and crime rate in general) is that way as a direct result of culture. Claiming that the homicide rate in Japan is low because of gun control is no more accurate than claiming that the suicide rather there is double that if the US because of gun control. The causation MUST be established in order to make that claim and the causation is NOT established in that case. This is particularly true because of all the other cases where WE DO HAVE a control case – the same region pre gun law – that established the law was ineffective. You are assuming that Japan is different only because you do not have the control data present.

If school shootings are such a minor problem, why did you say earlier that arming teachers would be a reasonable response?
As I wrote, it may be a difference in culture, but I doubt that most other Western countries would agree that having to arm their teachers is reasonable at all.

Because there is nothing unreasonable with responsible teachers that have a CC to carry a firearm on them while at school. Regardless of school shootings, there is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens arming themselves against possible threats. It’s not ‘just’ culture though. Again, you might not ‘see’ it as reasonable but I don’t care how anyone ‘sees’ it. I am after hard data and to be frank, the data does not show that gun free areas are any safer than non-gun free areas.

Just one example of the NRA's mission to limit enforcement is their continuing campaign against the appointment of a director for the ATF, and their demonising of its officers.

I can’t comment on the NRA trying to block a director to the ATF, I don’t know much about that. I do know that most of the complaining about NRA backed measures is because the NRA backs gun ownership and privacy – 2 things that are going to butt heads with enforcement in many instances. This is particularly true with privacy which is always a balance between what the authorities are supposed to know and what we are allowed to keep from them.

Perhaps you can make a point that the NRA is not helping enforcement and is disingenuous in that regard. That, however, does NOT bolster an argument for grater gun controls. All that does is highlight yet another reason that such groups are corrupt and pointless. In the end, the arguments for more gun control STILL fall flat on their face.

If many of the same people that say that gun controls can't work while these shootings are happening, can spend time, money and effort to create laws to correct a non-existent voter fraud problem - well - where are the priorities?

Irrelevant. This is not a discussion on the merits of voter ID or any other subject. It is also not a discussion on the rationality of one political spectrum or the other. If we go that way the only result are distractions and attack on character rather than argument.

Please excuse the fractured reply, I've tried to cover a lot of points.

No need – it is the only way to reply sometimes

 

[Joe Steel]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Public opinion determines the danger to the community.

 

[eflatminor]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Public opinion determines the danger to the community.

Worked beautifully during the lynching days...

Personally, I'd rather someone be convicted in a court a law before his rights are violated...but that's me.

 

[Meister]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Public opinion determines the danger to the community.

So an untrue story comes out in a newspaper to sway public opinion on a person and .....?


That's never happened, huh?

 

[FA_Q2]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Public opinion determines the danger to the community.

Wow, been awhile joe.

Anyway, what eflat stated is worthy of grater focus imo. Most importantly, our ENTIRE justice system is completely at odds with that little gem. The entire point of innocent until proven guilty and the right to a trial is that opinion should have NOTHING to do with the determination of removed rights or your ‘danger’ that an individual presents to the group. You might have some sort of point when referring to general concepts for regulations and the like but that is NOT what is being discussed here. There are 2 things in play – that the MAN presents a danger and – the right to own a firearm.

Neither of those instances are subject in any form to public opinion.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Public opinion determines the danger to the community.

public opinion at work

Shock Video Allegedly Shows Al Qaeda-Linked Terrorists Stopping Truck Drivers on Side of Road Then Executing Them for Not Being Sunni Muslims | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[Skull Pilot]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Public opinion determines the danger to the community.

So when public opinion was that a Black man moving into a neighborhood was "dangerous" you were OK with it?

 

[jon_berzerk]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Public opinion determines the danger to the community.

So when public opinion was that a Black man moving into a neighborhood was "dangerous" you were OK with it?

must have been alright when public opinion said the Indians

needed to be relocated to the reservations as well

 

[eflatminor]

Then you're denying reality. The government supplied statistics have been provided here and elsewhere numerous times. They prove without a doubt that violent crime increased following the ban.



Which was only the case after the ban. Again, you can choose to deny reality, but it's not helping your case.



I'm suggesting there is no way the gun grabbers can associate civilian firearm ownership with violent crime rates. So please, leave law abiding citizens alone and focus on those that actually harm others.

Please, I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.

Incorrect.

According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.

Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).

The following year, homicides were up another 20%.

That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.

As gun advocates have said many times...if someone is going to commit violence and they haven't got a gun then they'll use a different weapon.

Or they'll just find a firearm. Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?

It wasn't a rhetorical question idb. I'm interested in your opinion.

 

[eflatminor]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Public opinion determines the danger to the community.

Perhaps you were you being facetious?