NationStates

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Neither Sweden nor Switzerland has a gun culture where firearms are seen as necessary personal protection.

Is that why Switzerland mandates that its young men be trained in the use of an assault rifle, as well as actively maintaining it?

Do you know what "personal" protection means? As opposed to "national" protection?

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Neither Sweden nor Switzerland has a gun culture where firearms are seen as necessary personal protection.

Is that why Switzerland mandates that its young men be trained in the use of an assault rifle, as well as actively maintaining it?

Yup. It's also the reason why they don't provide ammunition for those weapons.

Galloism wrote:I'm not sure that's even true in the long term.

We're notoriously bad at banning shit. Really.

We've spent billions untold on the drug war, and I bet you I could walk out my front door, and, inside of 30 minutes, score some cocaine (I won't - of course. It's illegal and, besides, I have no use for it). It wasn't all that fired uncommon in Florida when I was down there for a haul of full auto weapons imported from Russia or other places that have NEVER been legal in the US since their manufacture date.

Hell, there's what... half a dozen ATF field offices in Florida? And they're busy as hell grabbing illegal firearms.

So no, I don't think a ban would be effective. Not here.

Drug precursors can be brought in pretty easily - the only thing which can stop them is dogs at customs. If you really care, you can manufacture drugs from things which aren't considered precursors. Booze can be produced anywhere, easily, with very common ingredients. And people get addicted to both of those - they can require drugs.

None of that applies to guns. There are fewer options for smuggling them in, they're more easily detected, less portable, more difficult to manufacture... obviously you can't prevent guns from ever getting in, but the idea isn't to bring the supply to 0, it's to bring it so low that ordinary criminals don't have access to them, and even organised crime reserves firearms for special cases to avoid throwing heat on themselves.

Galloism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:No, "run at them" was always my primary suggestion. Maybe you could find a use for pepper spray somewhere in there, but as I said at the start, you'd probably just grapple them to prevent them from shooting you.

I'm sure that'll work great given I'm currently in physical therapy and basically only able to use one arm to fight with.

Well, and for disabled vietnam veterans using walkers. Shamble faster, grandpa!

Well, there's no solution which will make everything perfect for everyone. As usual, if you couldn't rush them you wouldn't be able to draw your gun in time, either.

Galloism wrote:Or, for half the cost, we could simply put in a real social safety net and public education, and become Switzerland or Sweden.

Proper social services would help a lot, yes, but that's not the be-all end-all of public safety.

(Also, gun control is not generally expensive - there aren't massive, costly, wasteful "wars on guns" in other countries, although it would certainly get closer in America than elsewhere.)

Gun Manufacturers wrote:The second link I posted for the second example states that the man fired, and THEN the assailant ran away.

Are you totally sure? Because it also mentions that the man defending himself didn't commit a crime because of the specific laws of the state, which protect people over... 65, I think? Which doesn't sound like something you'd need for a straight-up self-defence case.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:Do these examples meet your approval, then?

Yes.

If you live somewhere with dangerous wildlife, that's as good a reason as you can get to carry a gun.

WestRedMaple wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:No, "run at them" was always my primary suggestion. Maybe you could find a use for pepper spray somewhere in there, but as I said at the start, you'd probably just grapple them to prevent them from shooting you.

The answer is yes, you did claim that other non-lethal and melee weapons would require less preparation. Then you turned around to pretend otherwise

Okay, dude, whatever you like.

United Marxist Nations wrote:How do you explain Switzerland's low murder rate?

And again, until you give a way to implement it, it may as well not be a suggestion at all.

Switzerland is pretty much the only country in the world with a high rate of gun ownership and low crime. I'm not going to pretend to know what makes it so special, but I'm also not going to pretend that this exception is any kind of general example.

And you're right, but in gun control arguments, my opponents tend to be people shouting about the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN and that ONLY A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN CAN STOP A BAD GUY WITH A GUN and IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS ONLY OUTLAWS etc etc etc. If your opinion is that a gun ban might be theoretically desirable but it's impractical in reality, I don't really have a problem with that.

Keyboard Warriors wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:No it isn't.

Yes it is.

Swiss citizens - for example hunters, or those who shoot as a sport - can get a permit to buy guns and ammunition, unless they have a criminal record, or police deem them unsuitable on psychiatric or security grounds.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

Salandriagado wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:Is that why Switzerland mandates that its young men be trained in the use of an assault rifle, as well as actively maintaining it?

Yup. It's also the reason why they don't provide ammunition for those weapons.

Which can be purchased by anyone with a permit. And, up until 2007, it did provide it; no change in crime rates.

Galloism wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:And which studies would they be? You mean that crappy Harvard one which doesn't even bother explaining why international data samples often don't correlate?


It matters because people in a poor socioeconomic state, normally who would be turned to crime, have access to firearms and ammunition in the US whereas they largely don't in Sweden or Switzerland.

Largely, those people who are in such a poor socioeconomic state they must turn to crime are in much fewer numbers, proportionally, in Sweden and Switzerland.

Because of the fucking safety net.

Sweden's murder rate is a seventh of that of the US. Can you use your data on "fewer numbers" to show that likewise the rate of people living in poverty in Sweden is a seventh of that of the US?

Can you explain other countries having a much lower murder rate than the US when the degree of coverage provided by social welfare is comparable?

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Yes it is.

Swiss citizens - for example hunters, or those who shoot as a sport - can get a permit to buy guns and ammunition, unless they have a criminal record, or police deem them unsuitable on psychiatric or security grounds.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

A consistent standard for that is what most American gun control advocates seek.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Galloism wrote:I'm not sure that's even true in the long term.

We're notoriously bad at banning shit. Really.

We've spent billions untold on the drug war, and I bet you I could walk out my front door, and, inside of 30 minutes, score some cocaine (I won't - of course. It's illegal and, besides, I have no use for it). It wasn't all that fired uncommon in Florida when I was down there for a haul of full auto weapons imported from Russia or other places that have NEVER been legal in the US since their manufacture date.

Hell, there's what... half a dozen ATF field offices in Florida? And they're busy as hell grabbing illegal firearms.

So no, I don't think a ban would be effective. Not here.

Drug precursors can be brought in pretty easily - the only thing which can stop them is dogs at customs. If you really care, you can manufacture drugs from things which aren't considered precursors. Booze can be produced anywhere, easily, with very common ingredients. And people get addicted to both of those - they can require drugs.

None of that applies to guns. There are fewer options for smuggling them in, they're more easily detected, less portable, more difficult to manufacture... obviously you can't prevent guns from ever getting in, but the idea isn't to bring the supply to 0, it's to bring it so low that ordinary criminals don't have access to them, and even organised crime reserves firearms for special cases to avoid throwing heat on themselves.

Galloism wrote:I'm sure that'll work great given I'm currently in physical therapy and basically only able to use one arm to fight with.

Well, and for disabled vietnam veterans using walkers. Shamble faster, grandpa!

Well, there's no solution which will make everything perfect for everyone. As usual, if you couldn't rush them you wouldn't be able to draw your gun in time, either.

Galloism wrote:Or, for half the cost, we could simply put in a real social safety net and public education, and become Switzerland or Sweden.

Proper social services would help a lot, yes, but that's not the be-all end-all of public safety.

(Also, gun control is not generally expensive - there aren't massive, costly, wasteful "wars on guns" in other countries, although it would certainly get closer in America than elsewhere.)

Gun Manufacturers wrote:The second link I posted for the second example states that the man fired, and THEN the assailant ran away.

Are you totally sure? Because it also mentions that the man defending himself didn't commit a crime because of the specific laws of the state, which protect people over... 65, I think? Which doesn't sound like something you'd need for a straight-up self-defence case.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:Do these examples meet your approval, then?

Yes.

If you live somewhere with dangerous wildlife, that's as good a reason as you can get to carry a gun.

WestRedMaple wrote:The answer is yes, you did claim that other non-lethal and melee weapons would require less preparation. Then you turned around to pretend otherwise

Okay, dude, whatever you like.

United Marxist Nations wrote:How do you explain Switzerland's low murder rate?

And again, until you give a way to implement it, it may as well not be a suggestion at all.

Switzerland is pretty much the only country in the world with a high rate of gun ownership and low crime. I'm not going to pretend to know what makes it so special, but I'm also not going to pretend that this exception is any kind of general example.

And you're right, but in gun control arguments, my opponents tend to be people shouting about the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO OWN A GUN and that ONLY A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN CAN STOP A BAD GUY WITH A GUN and IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS ONLY OUTLAWS etc etc etc. If your opinion is that a gun ban might be theoretically desirable but it's impractical in reality, I don't really have a problem with that.

I am personally against a gun ban, largely because I am a gun owner, and largely because I'm a Marxist-Leninist.

Master Shake wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Because it's very difficult to buy ammunition in switzerland.

Reminds me of a Chris Rock joke...

How do we stop innocent bystanders being killed in drive by shootings?

Well easy. Make the cost of a single bullet $5,000 dollars...

If they want to kill someone then they need to be very accurate.

I really hate that line, because it shows such ignorance about ammunition.

Ammunition is relatively easy to make, it's not rocket science (except for Gyrojet rounds, which ARE in fact rockets).

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Yes it is.

Swiss citizens - for example hunters, or those who shoot as a sport - can get a permit to buy guns and ammunition, unless they have a criminal record, or police deem them unsuitable on psychiatric or security grounds.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

Try buying ammunition for the half million assault rifles that are present in many Swiss homes which greatly inflates the firearm ownership figures.

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Sweden's murder rate is a seventh of that of the US. Can you use your data on "fewer numbers" to show that likewise the rate of people living in poverty in Sweden is a seventh of that of the US?

Can you explain other countries having a much lower murder rate than the US when the degree of coverage provided by social welfare is comparable?

Obviously it's not that simple, there are a lot of factors which feed into it and it's not going to be a straight 1/7 poverty = 1/7 gun crime. But it's a factor, and it's well known that the socioeconomic wellbeing of the general population is closely linked to crime and other undesirable activity.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Yup. It's also the reason why they don't provide ammunition for those weapons.

Which can be purchased by anyone with a permit. And, up until 2007, it did provide it; no change in crime rates.

And whatever deity you pray to help you if you didn't bring back the package.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Neither Sweden nor Switzerland has a gun culture where firearms are seen as necessary personal protection.

Is that why Switzerland mandates that its young men be trained in the use of an assault rifle, as well as actively maintaining it?

Uh, you do realize that's not for personal safety, right? Switzerland has no standing army, so it trains almost all able bodied men and conscripts them into the militia. So yeah, Keyboard is right. Switzerland doesn't have a culture that emphasizes guns being used for personal protection.

Should have kept the safety of and watched her kid.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Sweden's murder rate is a seventh of that of the US. Can you use your data on "fewer numbers" to show that likewise the rate of people living in poverty in Sweden is a seventh of that of the US?

Can you explain other countries having a much lower murder rate than the US when the degree of coverage provided by social welfare is comparable?

Obviously it's not that simple, there are a lot of factors which feed into it and it's not going to be a straight 1/7 poverty = 1/7 gun crime. But it's a factor, and it's well known that the socioeconomic wellbeing of the general population is closely linked to crime and other undesirable activity.

I'm not denying that there are factors outside of firearms ownership which contribute to crime, nor am I even suggesting that it's the main cause, but it contributes. It's illogical to pretend that ease of access to firearms, particularly unregistered and untraceable firearms which is a phenomena mostly exclusive to the US. doesn't make it easier and more attractive for people to commit crimes with them. Whether or not something can or should be done about it is an entirely separate issue.

Tubbsalot wrote:

Galloism wrote:I'm not sure that's even true in the long term.

We're notoriously bad at banning shit. Really.

We've spent billions untold on the drug war, and I bet you I could walk out my front door, and, inside of 30 minutes, score some cocaine (I won't - of course. It's illegal and, besides, I have no use for it). It wasn't all that fired uncommon in Florida when I was down there for a haul of full auto weapons imported from Russia or other places that have NEVER been legal in the US since their manufacture date.

Hell, there's what... half a dozen ATF field offices in Florida? And they're busy as hell grabbing illegal firearms.

So no, I don't think a ban would be effective. Not here.

Drug precursors can be brought in pretty easily - the only thing which can stop them is dogs at customs. If you really care, you can manufacture drugs from things which aren't considered precursors. Booze can be produced anywhere, easily, with very common ingredients. And people get addicted to both of those - they can require drugs.

Eh, we smuggle in billions of pounds of marijuana annually, and very few are addicted to pot.

It's not especially addicting.

None of that applies to guns. There are fewer options for smuggling them in, they're more easily detected, less portable, more difficult to manufacture... obviously you can't prevent guns from ever getting in, but the idea isn't to bring the supply to 0, it's to bring it so low that ordinary criminals don't have access to them, and even organised crime reserves firearms for special cases to avoid throwing heat on themselves.

They're not more easily detected, actually. They're not especially less portable either. We don't have the manpower or equipment to scan even 1% of the cargo that enters the United States. Drugs are easier (although not especially easy), because a dog can walk down the aisle between containers stacked three high and detect drugs. Guns cannot be sniffed out.

Certainly more difficult to manufacture. It'd probably take me the better part of two days to manufacture a decent one in my garage if my left hand wasn't messed up. Of course, I have tools.

Now, if we're talking about sniper weapons, you're quite correct that it requires a very specific and precise manufacturing process, but making a gun that's good at a range of 100 feet is really not that hard.

Galloism wrote:I'm sure that'll work great given I'm currently in physical therapy and basically only able to use one arm to fight with.

Well, and for disabled vietnam veterans using walkers. Shamble faster, grandpa!

Well, there's no solution which will make everything perfect for everyone. As usual, if you couldn't rush them you wouldn't be able to draw your gun in time, either.

Grandpa did. He wouldn't have been able to rush them, but he did have time to draw his gun.

One of my main problems is that those who seek to ban guns seek to ban the great equalizer of force. This means that, in reality, who they are hurting are women and the elderly. Those are the ones who need guns most - because they can't (or may not be able to) defend themselves using their body alone.

Really, those who would ban guns hate women.

Galloism wrote:Or, for half the cost, we could simply put in a real social safety net and public education, and become Switzerland or Sweden.

Proper social services would help a lot, yes, but that's not the be-all end-all of public safety.

(Also, gun control is not generally expensive - there aren't massive, costly, wasteful "wars on guns" in other countries, although it would certainly get closer in America than elsewhere.)

You're talking about banning something more dearly held precious by Americans than alcohol or drugs.

Something that is seen as a god-given right (not really my view, given if it was god-given, we would have had guns always) to have. If you think it would be cheaper than the drug war, you are so far outside this reality that we're going to need some sort of transdimensional gateway to get you back.

The toddler should be executed immediately. Open and shut case, from womb to tomb.

Keyboard Warriors wrote:

Galloism wrote:Largely, those people who are in such a poor socioeconomic state they must turn to crime are in much fewer numbers, proportionally, in Sweden and Switzerland.

Because of the fucking safety net.

Sweden's murder rate is a seventh of that of the US. Can you use your data on "fewer numbers" to show that likewise the rate of people living in poverty in Sweden is a seventh of that of the US?

Can you explain other countries having a much lower murder rate than the US when the degree of coverage provided by social welfare is comparable?

Not quite.

The poverty rate in sweden is 3.7%. In the US, it's 14.7%.

So ours is 4 times higher.

http://www.inequalitywatch.eu/spip.php?article99

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 ... 28974.html

Of course, Sweden also tries to make sure people don't starve to death.

Keyboard Warriors wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:Swiss citizens - for example hunters, or those who shoot as a sport - can get a permit to buy guns and ammunition, unless they have a criminal record, or police deem them unsuitable on psychiatric or security grounds.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

Try buying ammunition for the half million assault rifles that are present in many Swiss homes which greatly inflates the firearm ownership figures.

You can, it's why sport shooting is a very common thing in Switzerland, about 600,000 belong to gun-clubs.

Mavorpen wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:Is that why Switzerland mandates that its young men be trained in the use of an assault rifle, as well as actively maintaining it?

Uh, you do realize that's not for personal safety, right? Switzerland has no standing army, so it trains almost all able bodied men and conscripts them into the militia. So yeah, Keyboard is right. Switzerland doesn't have a culture that emphasizes guns being used for personal protection.

Yeah, I'll admit that was an oversight on my part. However, I think it does show that the Swiss are exceptionally paranoid.

Meanwhile, in Poland...

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:Uh, you do realize that's not for personal safety, right? Switzerland has no standing army, so it trains almost all able bodied men and conscripts them into the militia. So yeah, Keyboard is right. Switzerland doesn't have a culture that emphasizes guns being used for personal protection.

Yeah, I'll admit that was an oversight on my part. However, I think it does show that the Swiss are exceptionally paranoid.

Meanwhile, in Poland...

But they don't have a standing army so a militia is kind of their only hope.

United Marxist Nations wrote:

Keyboard Warriors wrote:Try buying ammunition for the half million assault rifles that are present in many Swiss homes which greatly inflates the firearm ownership figures.

You can, it's why sport shooting is a very common thing in Switzerland, about 600,000 belong to gun-clubs.

You can, if you hold a valid permit. Vastly different to "you can" in the United States.

Galloism wrote:

Tubbsalot wrote:Drug precursors can be brought in pretty easily - the only thing which can stop them is dogs at customs. If you really care, you can manufacture drugs from things which aren't considered precursors. Booze can be produced anywhere, easily, with very common ingredients. And people get addicted to both of those - they can require drugs.

Eh, we smuggle in billions of pounds of marijuana annually, and very few are addicted to pot.

It's not especially addicting.

None of that applies to guns. There are fewer options for smuggling them in, they're more easily detected, less portable, more difficult to manufacture... obviously you can't prevent guns from ever getting in, but the idea isn't to bring the supply to 0, it's to bring it so low that ordinary criminals don't have access to them, and even organised crime reserves firearms for special cases to avoid throwing heat on themselves.

They're not more easily detected, actually. They're not especially less portable either. We don't have the manpower or equipment to scan even 1% of the cargo that enters the United States. Drugs are easier (although not especially easy), because a dog can walk down the aisle between containers stacked three high and detect drugs. Guns cannot be sniffed out.

Certainly more difficult to manufacture. It'd probably take me the better part of two days to manufacture a decent one in my garage if my left hand wasn't messed up. Of course, I have tools.

Now, if we're talking about sniper weapons, you're quite correct that it requires a very specific and precise manufacturing process, but making a gun that's good at a range of 100 feet is really not that hard.

Well, there's no solution which will make everything perfect for everyone. As usual, if you couldn't rush them you wouldn't be able to draw your gun in time, either.

Grandpa did. He wouldn't have been able to rush them, but he did have time to draw his gun.

One of my main problems is that those who seek to ban guns seek to ban the great equalizer of force. This means that, in reality, who they are hurting are women and the elderly. Those are the ones who need guns most - because they can't (or may not be able to) defend themselves using their body alone.

Really, those who would ban guns hate women.

Proper social services would help a lot, yes, but that's not the be-all end-all of public safety.

(Also, gun control is not generally expensive - there aren't massive, costly, wasteful "wars on guns" in other countries, although it would certainly get closer in America than elsewhere.)

You're talking about banning something more dearly held precious by Americans than alcohol or drugs.

Something that is seen as a god-given right (not really my view, given if it was god-given, we would have had guns always) to have. If you think it would be cheaper than the drug war, you are so far outside this reality that we're going to need some sort of transdimensional gateway to get you back.

Now while women may or may not be physically weaker then men that is pure sexist to say that women need guns to defend themselves. I know women who are vicious is martial arts when they spar and can more than likely beat the shite out of any attacker.

Keyboard Warriors wrote:

United Marxist Nations wrote:You can, it's why sport shooting is a very common thing in Switzerland, about 600,000 belong to gun-clubs.

You can, if you hold a valid permit. Vastly different to "you can" in the United States.

Getting a valid permit is no issue, especially since militia members are required to have most gun-related permits.

Gauthier wrote:Police sketch artists have released an illustration of the suspect:

(Image)

I love you, even though that arc died years ago.

Seriously though, this sucks a lot, the kids gonna be so ashamed later in life, but the worst part of me is laughing at it if only because the issue is so unexpected, that I'm having trouble believing this is real, but it is.