Advertisement

GUN ownership, Killings - a US epidemic

Started by October 02, 2015 12:40 PM
180 comments, last by tstrimp 9 years, 4 months ago

Look at swiss, everyone has weapon there since recruit army time

I know I am late to the party, but as swiss who did military service and having had an Assault Rifle in my closet for 10 years, I want to clarify a little bit on that.

Yes, a lot of swiss men (and also a few women) have a military weapon at home. Not just pistols, assault rifles, unmodified ones at that (thus capable of fully automatic fire)... most of these rifles though will dissappear from these households after the active military service though, as the swiss military changed the rules on who can keep their military service weapon after finishing their service time.

So now, you need to prove you were taking part in civil shooting competitions (there is one big competition every year that is partially supported by the military) for at least the last two years before finishing your service time, you need to pay a small sume for the weapon now (100 bucks, nothing outrageous (given the Stgw90 costs around 1000-2000 bucks on the free market), and quite fair given they need to modify the assault rifles to block automatic fire modes which are forbidden in civil weapons, still, this was completly free of charge before).

I expect the amount of people that will keep their weapon after their service time will drastically fall from 70-80% (pulled out of my a**, basically only people that didn't like having a weapon in their closet were giving it back before (or people pushed by their GF or Wife who didn't like it smile.png )) to around 10-20% (pulled out of my a** again, but seeing how even guys that like weapons and military stuff seldomly can be bothered to participate in shooting sports in their own free time, I don't see many people starting to attend these competitions just for keeping a weapon with possibly a lot of knocks and chipped off paint (at least for the infantry guys smile.png )).

There has been only one incident with someone shooting another person with a military weapon where the weapon owner was actually the person that got the wapon in military in the last 20 years I can remember...

But you need to remember, anyone who got their weapon through military had to go through at least 15 weeks of basic training, and will be forced to do another 3-4 weeks of training every year or so for another 7 years at least. When people take their weapons home for the first time, they had to have thourough drills on the safe use of weapons, safe stowage, cleaning, manipulation, and so on... and at least in infantry, we had also experienced a lot of theoretical education on the effect of bullets on the human body (and sadly also some less theoretical ones, but such accidents are actually surprisingly rare).

So most poeple in switzerland owning a weapon only got it attached to a very intense training on the use of the weapon... which will likely decrease the chance of this person having a gun related accident (altough I am still amazed about the amount of people shooting their own foot while cleaning a weapon smile.png ), and IMO als decreases the chance the person will want to actually shoot anyone with the gun... if you see images and descriptions of wounds caused by modern assault rifles, you start to really get that these rifles are NOT a good tool for civilian self defense (might as well use a shotgun with explosive ammo)... and you might also be waking up to the truth that shooting someone is NOT a non-lethal way of self defense.

Add to that the fact that while swiss soldiers still keep their weapons at home, the soldier isn't allowed to store ammunition for their weapon at home. originally every soldier got a can with 50 shots home, so they they would already be armed when called for active service in a crisis (military hardliners though that some tree-huggers might want to stop them from reaching their troops, so that is who these bullets were intended for), but that practice fell out of public favour with lots of leftwing people seeing these military weapons as a huge problem. You CAN get NATO 5.6mm rounds easely in switzerland, as these assault rifles are used a lot in sporting competitions, and many have "stolen" these round in military or at competitions. Still, you need to aquire ammunition yourself, which is too much hassle for many people.

Some leftwing guys tried to force soldiers to keep it at military stowage facilities while they were not in active service, but that was rightly shot down as getting your weapon before military service and putting it back after would have added a lot of hassle solely burdened on the soldier.

The last fact to take note of is that every military weapon has a number that can be linked to its legitimate owner. Every part of the gun shares this number, if you mix up the parts during active service, you are in big trougle. So everyone getting out of service and still possesing such a gun will own a gun that the state knows EXACTLY who it belongs to.

EDIT: oh, and I almost forgot... you also need a "weapon permit" (don't know what the correct english translation is for that), which is a paper that grants you the right to posses a gun (not to carry it or actually aquiring one, whose are separate permits).

Not that hard to get, every swiss citizen can apply for it, and given they have no criminal record and pay the fees they will get it.

Still, another step on they way to be able to keep your military weapon at home. Meaning the guys that should never have gotten a weapon (because every dork seems to be acceptable for military at a time when more and more try to circumvent the draft) will most probably fail that step (as they might have a record) and might be forced to give back their weapon.

So yeah, a lot of people have guns in their closets in switzerland (though most of these are assault rifles, not really a practical tool for self defense anyway), and not much harm is done with these weapons.

But these are highly regulated weapons, modified for non-automatic fire, clearly numbered, and owned by people that actually know how to use them (which most of the time is a good thing, because it makes it leass likely they WILL use them). Not really comparable to the situation in the US, even though my knowledge about that is fuzzy.

What no statistics will tell you is where these weapons will end up. I guess many swiss assault rifles end up in foreign hands, the Stgw90 is a quite expensive and formidable Weapon, and cheap to anyone who got it through military, so they can sell it for a low price and still make lots of money. This got regulated a lot in the last few years, but I think it is still legal.

Would be interesting to see how many Stgw90 produced for the swiss military turn up in active warzones around the globe... quite a hot topic in swiss politics as switzerland bans ALL weapon exports into active warzones.

the weak answer is gun control, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Lose your weapons and some time down the track you will lose your freedom.

Remember People Kill People not lawn mowers.

What about some one knowing they have swine flu or some other form and give it to you knowing that you may die is that not the same as a gun.

So I say ban all people banning any thing. there wrong and that is no fix.

Advertisement

the weak answer is gun control, guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Lose your weapons and some time down the track you will lose your freedom.

Remember People Kill People not lawn mowers.

What about some one knowing they have swine flu or some other form and give it to you knowing that you may die is that not the same as a gun.

So I say ban all people banning any thing. there wrong and that is no fix.

Lame old "guns don't kill..." response. Of course, its not the tank that blows up houses of the neighbours you don't like, so why not make it legal for people to own tanks with actually working guns? And, given that might already be allowed in the US, why not extend that to the atomic bomb? After all, if nobody pulls the trigger, there is not much harm in every house having its own atomic bomb, right?

Anyway, if people kill people and not guns, why not ban people? How safe would our streets be with no people in them shooting each other, driving cars or stepping in front of these cars to get run over?

If people wouldn't be so incredibly stupid, and so rotten to the core there would be no need for laws and regulations. With humans being just the way they are though, I am happy to live in a country where there are rules in place to make the country a safer place for EVERYONE, and you are not expected to enter a civilian arms race just to "level the playing field".

ose your weapons and some time down the track you will lose your freedom.

Americans have already lost their freedom, and good luck using your weapons to overthrow their tyrannical government (as was intended by the constitution)!!

They already restrict you from coming anywhere close to matching them in firepower, and anyway, if you even thought seriously about revolution, they'd lock you up before you even got organized. They've got a tap on your internet, phone and location, even if you're not a suspect. And once you are a suspect, they turn you into a 'terrorist' and put you away for life.

Your home-defence guns are not a concern to their rule, at all.

ose your weapons and some time down the track you will lose your freedom.

Americans have already lost their freedom, and good luck using your weapons to overthrow their tyrannical government (as was intended by the constitution)!!

They already restrict you from coming anywhere close to matching them in firepower, and anyway, if you even thought seriously about revolution, they'd lock you up before you even got organized. They've got a tap on your internet, phone and location, even if you're not a suspect. And once you are a suspect, they turn you into a 'terrorist' and put you away for life.

Your home-defence guns are not a concern to their rule, at all.

This many armed people turned their guns on the federal government to help a less-than likable guy.

https://i.imgur.com/RGHVGTn.jpg

Yes, the government has a vast amount of information on tap. Hopefully people in the future will learn not to be so public with their information.

If there was an overreach that was proven, or ongoing government abuse, you could expect crowds 100 times that size across most states in the USA.

This many armed people turned their guns on the federal government to help a less-than likable guy.

https://i.imgur.com/RGHVGTn.jpg

Yes, the government has a vast amount of information on tap. Hopefully people in the future will learn not to be so public with their information.

If there was an overreach that was proven, or ongoing government abuse, you could expect crowds 100 times that size across most states in the USA.

I am totally of the opinion that true change can only be gained with force at some point. Given that our "demoCRAZY" today in most countries is not much more than smoke and mirrors for a monarchy of the rich, you need a lot of power to really change things...

But: if you bring guns to a tank battle, you will loose. How many among your crowds have rpgs laying around their homes? And how many of these RPGs can actually penetrate a fully modernized abrahams? How many civilians can really win a 1-vs-1 fight against a trained and armed soldier? How many guys are needed to storm a MG emplacement?

How can you build up a force that can fight an army costing 15 billions or more a year when most people in the country that could actually contribute a good amount of money to this cause are the ones that are actually the least interested in any kind of change?

In the end, the REAL power of the masses is that they can force changes simply by being the majority and by taking away legitimacy from the few with power. If most of a countrys population is out on the street protesting against the ruler, how can this ruler still say he got 99.9% of votes in the last elections with 98% of the population having voted?

There is no need for guns when voicing your disagreement with the current rule. And there is no point in trying to resort to violence against an opponent so vastly more powerful that numbers become meaningless... lest you want to re-enact all the mistakes made in WW1 on the battlefields of france.

If you really want to defend your freedom, start with education. Back that up with people that participate in politics (as opposed to skip on elections and votes because "my vote doesn't matter anyway / no time / too boring /..."). Make sure your voice is heard. You do not need to put a gun on your presidents head when millions rally before the white house, He will have to listen anyway.

Advertisement
Education is circumvented by the cia.

Yes, a standing army of citizens wouldn't beat the US army, however assymetrically it would. Ied's for tanks, mortar strikes on bases, exexutions for service members families... The government can't wage war on an armed country. What would stop someone from drilling a hole in their trunk, parking along a road, and shooting service members that walk by, or looking them up, finding their families, and burning their house down?

Equipment is useless without people to operate it, and destroying morale destroys armies.

My phones autocomplete butchered some grammar

And yet, Chicago has some of the strictest guns laws in the nation with the highest rates of murder and gun crimes in the nation. This isn't a gun issue, it is a people issue. If we abolished gun ownership and somehow managed to confiscate all guns and melt them down, there would be mass stabbings or bombings. If someone is intent on causing this level of harm to others, they will find a way. You cannot legislate away evil, no matter how hard you try.


For one: Chicago's gun crime rate has decreased considerably since the nineties (~40%).

For two: The gun sale restrictions in Chicago are completely ineffective because anyone in Chicago can take a 15-30 minute drive to Chuck's Gun Store (that's a real place) just outside Chicago and buy a gun. I thin in the last 5 years over 1,300 of the guns confiscated in Chicago have come from this single store.

So any time someone on the net or otherwise tries to use Chicago to disprove the effectiveness of gun restrictions on gun crime, you know they're way off. Gun control can only work if it is applied uniformly and consistently without silly loopholes like the gun show and Internet sale workarounds.


And yet, Chicago has some of the strictest guns laws in the nation with the highest rates of murder and gun crimes in the nation.

That would be because of the guns that are coming into Chicago are from outside Chicago and also outside Illinois. If the whole state of Illinois had as strict gun laws as Chicago and strict enforcement of those gun laws and it still had the highest gun crime rate, then I'd be more apt to side with your argument.

And yet, Chicago has some of the strictest guns laws in the nation with the highest rates of murder and gun crimes in the nation. This isn't a gun issue, it is a people issue. If we abolished gun ownership and somehow managed to confiscate all guns and melt them down, there would be mass stabbings or bombings. If someone is intent on causing this level of harm to others, they will find a way. You cannot legislate away evil, no matter how hard you try.


For one: Chicago's gun crime rate has decreased considerably since the nineties (~40%).

For two: The gun sale restrictions in Chicago are completely ineffective because anyone in Chicago can take a 15-30 minute drive to Chuck's Gun Store (that's a real place) just outside Chicago and buy a gun. I thin in the last 5 years over 1,300 of the guns confiscated in Chicago have come from this single store.

So any time someone on the net or otherwise tries to use Chicago to disprove the effectiveness of gun restrictions on gun crime, you know they're way off. Gun control can only work if it is applied uniformly and consistently without silly loopholes like the gun show and Internet sale workarounds.

THANK YOU! SOMEONE GETS IT!

Beginner in Game Development?  Read here. And read here.

 

Correlation is not causation for proof either way, though. Crime skyrocketed up in Detroit when the handgun ban went into place... But that's when it's industry was getting demolished, and abject poverty in the area appeared as well.

Detroit's crime has fallen in line with other cities

http://i.imgur.com/8Au0qQH.jpg

They have, however, became a shall issue state for CC permits as of last year, so data from the impact of that should be interesting. These are the results from the Detroit PD (Which may be biased, need to wait for a few years data of course)

http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/detnews/graphics/2015/crimestats_gfx_010315.jpg

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement