gun ownership in the USA

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

last year, 51 have been murdered, (snip).. switzerland has about 7'000'000 citizens.

Those are stunningly low numbers. There were 55 homicides in Greater Vancouver last year (Pop. ~2.2M) and our murder rate tends to be much lower than in the US.

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

in the last couple of years, army rifles have repeatedly been used in amok runs, random killings and cases of domestic violence. that is a rather new phenomenon. so, politicians are trying to not allow that rifle/pistol hometaking of army issued weapons anymore. why that occured, one can only speculate. maybe immigration is playing a role.

Americans eh?

thanks for the tears!!! i can hardly breathe now..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

basically, you can get rifle-training from as early as 15 or 16yrs old on. switzerland has a militia, so practically you'll find at least one army rifle in every household.

Hey how easy is it to find some of the goodies for the outdated SR 1911 or the K31....stuff like bayonets... muzzle covers.. slings...

And what does 7.5x55 cost locally

shouldnt be too difficult at the yearly gunfair.. even otherwise, you could probably order the stuff yourself..

as for the ammunition, i'm not sure, the army-sponsored i think costs less than 30 centws..

the 1911 and k31 you can get for less than 100$ for example here..

edited to add: found the ammo, 50 rounds for about 40$ or so..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[Amazon 7]

When is the yearly gunfair... and what city... that sounds like it could be fun
I hear there is even some skydiving there. I bet that fishy guy would come out to play

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

When is the yearly gunfair... and what city... that sounds like it could be fun
I hear there is even some skydiving there. I bet that fishy guy would come out to play

sometime in summer, lucerne... its not really spectacular for us-standards tough probably. altough i bought my shotgun there..
i try to get a jump together with that fishy guy for way too long, but i'll play with you! and if we'd go to triengen, i'm sure obelix would be in for some rather fast fun. you guys just go belly-to-earth while i come after you in a stand..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

in the last couple of years, army rifles have repeatedly been used in amok runs, random killings and cases of domestic violence. that is a rather new phenomenon. so, politicians are trying to not allow that rifle/pistol hometaking of army issued weapons anymore. why that occured, one can only speculate. maybe immigration is playing a role.

Americans eh?

230-something years is a long time to have that 'chip' on the old shoulder! That must've been some really good tea!


Chuck

[virgin-burner 1]

764yrs over here!

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

last year, 51 have been murdered... 35 times a gun has been used

35 gun murders out of a population of 7.5 million.

Heck, Chicago alone, with a population of about 3 million, where guns are banned, had more murders than that just this summer alone.

http://chicago.everyblock.com/crime/by-primary-type/homicide/

Like I said: Switzerland - high gun ownership, low gun crime.

It's an example that the gun-o-phobes prefer not to talk about.

Readers: Where would you feel most safe from murder?
In Chicago where guns are banned,
or in Switzerland where every home has a military assault rifle?

[masterrig 1]

Quote

764yrs over here!

Dayum! That's a lot of tea!


Chuck

[quade 4]

Quote

In Chicago where guns are banned,
or in Switzerland where every home has a military assault rifle?

To be fair, there's a pretty big difference in training isn't there? I mean aren't those "military assault rifle" the same weapons used by the troops who were forced to be in the military by law and therefore pretty well trained in their use.

Additionally, isn't the "military assault rifle" optional (nobody forces a person to buy it) and if if purchased by the person leaving the military "de-milled" so it no longer functions the same way?

Lastly, isn't the claim that one exists in "every" home inaccurate? Certainly there are homes without them.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Heck, Chicago alone, with a population of about 3 million, where guns are banned, had more murders than that just this summer alone.

however, the metropolitan area has nearly 10 million people.

[virgin-burner 1]

Quote

Quote

In Chicago where guns are banned,
or in Switzerland where every home has a military assault rifle?

To be fair, there's a pretty big difference in training isn't there? I mean aren't those "military assault rifle" the same weapons used by the troops who were forced to be in the military by law and therefore pretty well trained in their use.

Additionally, isn't the "military assault rifle" optional (nobody forces a person to buy it) and if if purchased by the person leaving the military "de-milled" so it no longer functions the same way?

Lastly, isn't the claim that one exists in "every" home inaccurate? Certainly there are homes without them.

in this thread i wrote a little about the practices in sissyland..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[kallend 2,027]

Another JR apples to oranges comparison (or nation to city in this case).

If you want to compare CITIES, Geneva (Switzerland) has a higher homicide rate than London, Paris, Berlin or Copenhagen, and only slightly lower than Belfast.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Another JR apples to oranges comparison (or nation to city in this case).

If you want to compare CITIES, Geneva (Switzerland) has a higher homicide rate than London, Paris, Berlin or Copenhagen, and only slightly lower than Belfast.

But aren't most of the homicdes in Geneva spies on spies? You'd have to ban all umbrellas to tackle that problem.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Heck, Chicago alone, with a population of about 3 million, where guns are banned, had more murders than that just this summer alone.

however, the metropolitan area has nearly 10 million people.

The metro area isn't where the large majority of the murders are happening. Nor are guns banned in most of that area. So how 'bout we stick to the relevant test cases.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

To be fair, there's a pretty big difference in training isn't there? I mean aren't those "military assault rifle" the same weapons used by the troops who were forced to be in the military by law and therefore pretty well trained in their use.

Additionally, isn't the "military assault rifle" optional (nobody forces a person to buy it) and if if purchased by the person leaving the military "de-milled" so it no longer functions the same way?

Lastly, isn't the claim that one exists in "every" home inaccurate? Certainly there are homes without them.

Training: just like the tens of millions of Americans who have had military training and returned to civilian life to own guns.

De-milled: if semi-autos are okay, and mostly only full-auto machineguns are the problem, well then, guess what, very few Americans own machineguns. Just semi-autos. So, once again, you're comparison is equal, not divergent.

Every home: Okay, so it may not be absolutely "every" home, but it's a very large percentage of them. Depending upon what stats you look it, it's either a little higher or much higher than America. So once again, this should create a bigger gun crime problem in Switzerland, according to gun-o-phobe logic. But it's not. It's better.

Gun-o-phobe logic states that where there are more guns, there will be more gun crime. Yet there are examples to the contrary all over the place. Switzerland is one of those examples that invalidates gun-o-phobe logic.

Crime is not about the presence of guns. It's about the presence of criminal culture.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Gun-o-phobe

John, this is easily the 3rd or 4th time I've told you this: every time you use that term, and similar sneering stridency, to deride people, any chance you have at persuading anyone who is not already firmly in line with your position on this issue plummets to about zero. You are your own worst enemy.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

I have been to the States a couple of times for great holidays. Would I be right in saying that when walking around most cities a lot of people would be carrying hand guns.. or have them in their cars etc. What about walking around Disneyland or going to las Vegas would alot of people be carrying firearms or is that just a myth and people just have them at home. Not a joke just wondering.

Being a midwestern girl and having been raised around firearms, here is my perspective.

I have a concealed carry. Many of my friends do as well - but my sub community consists of several current / prior law enforcement and those in the firearms industry. My population is skewed. Although you weren't asking about the "why", I will try to explain some of the mentality. I don't believe that the cops are here to protect ME. I don't have a body guard. Law enforcement is there to enforce the laws (which need to be broke before they are even "needed") I, and many of my friends, take personal safety as a personal responsibility. As do most CCW (concealed carry weapon) owners - although they might not be so paranoid that they "pack heat" at Disney (which in fact... if you do a google search of CCW and disney, you will pull up many posts/threads on other forums that discuss that) but some do feel more secure knowing that they have something "up their sleeve" if coming up against someone that wants to do them harm.

The whole point of the CCW though is that you DON'T really know. Whether that deters crime or not is often debated.... but it does make the one carrying FEEL safer and that is sometimes all he/she wants.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

... I, and many of my friends, take personal safety as a personal responsibility. As do most CCW (concealed carry weapon) owners - although they might not be so paranoid that they "pack heat" at Disney (which in fact... if you do a google search of CCW and disney, you will pull up many posts/threads on other forums that discuss that) but some do feel more secure knowing that they have something "up their sleeve" if coming up against someone that wants to do them harm.

In talking with CCW holders, I've found that many of them feel that their CCW is a responsibility to carry. If they leave their weapon at home and something happens to a loved one, and it was something they could have been in a position to stop if they had their weapon, they would feel horribly guilty about it, so they choose to carry everywhere they can so they never have to come face to face with that "what if." With regards to carrying at Disneyland, a friend's statement on the subject was "you don't only wear your seatbelt when you're most likely to get into a car accident, do you?" We used to think schools and churches were unlikely places for violent crime.

There have been several CCW holders in California (that I personally know of... I imagine there have probably been more) that were in situations where someone was committing an armed robbery of a store or a bank where they were a customer, and they were carrying. They chose to keep their weapons concealed and do nothing, because the robber probably wanted money and to escape, which is exactly what happened, but nobody got hurt.

I also know people whose lives have probably been saved by their CCW permits and the fact that they were carrying weapons.

When you are carrying, you can always choose to keep your weapon concealed and behave as though you don't have one. You do not have to draw. But if you don't carry, you don't have the option of drawing your weapon if you need it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

John, this is easily the 3rd or 4th time I've told you this: every time you use that term, and similar sneering stridency, to deride people, any chance you have at persuading anyone who is not already firmly in line with your position on this issue plummets to about zero. You are your own worst enemy.

Re: 3rd or 4th time...
So why don't you quit saying it. I'll express myself the way I want to, and you don't get to control how I say things.

Re: sneering stridency, to deride...
"Gun-o-phobe" is an accurate description for anti-gun people. They are scared of guns, aka a phobia. That's why they do everything they can to try and keep people from having the right to own them. If you don't like the term, sorry 'bout that, but I'll continue to use it when I want to.

Re: any chance you have at persuading...
Zero is about the chance you have of persuading a gun-o-phobe to change his mind. If they're on the fence on the issue, they should be able to see the facts and logic in what I say, and not turn their whole brain off because I use a single hyphenated word. If they're so emotional that they take grave offense at that term and decide based upon that, then they're the type of person that's already lost to reason anyway.

What phrase do you suggest would be better to describe gun-o-phobes that would be emotionally neutral?

Do you make the same kind of argument towards the gun-o-phobes when they call guys like me "gun nuts" and "right wing extremists", and say that we are "living in fear", and so forth?

[Botellines 0]

This is one of those situations in that what is good for the person as an individual may not be good for the society as a whole. And incidentally when something is bad (or not good) for the society it ends up affecting the individuals.

[quade 4]

Quote

You are your own worst enemy.

I beg to differ. He might not be helping his case at all, but I doubt he's his own worst enemy.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

This is one of those situations in that what is good for the person as an individual may not be good for the society as a whole. And incidentally when something is bad (or not good) for the society it ends up affecting the individuals.

By what misbegotten logic is a person having the means to protect themselves from violent crime "not be good for society as a whole"?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'll express myself the way I want to, and you don't get to control how I say things.

That's ironic, John. You frequently scold people for sundry violations of posting protocol. 'Smatter, ain't it good enough for the gander?

Quote

They are scared of guns, aka a phobia.

I think if they're familiar with your posts, they're probably more scared of you than they are of guns.

Quote

If they're so emotional that they take grave offense at that term and decide based upon that, then they're the type of person that's already lost to reason anyway.

You're simply wrong - they're not lost to reason. They're thoughtful, reasonable, persuadable people; but they tend to get persuaded away from your point of view when you stick your foot up their ass and dismiss them as fucktards. They take offense and are moved by the derisive stridency, which they find scary because it seems so sociopathic. The particular term is simply emblematic.

Quote

Do you make the same kind of argument towards the gun-o-phobes when they call guys like me "gun nuts" and "right wing extremists", and say that we are "living in fear", and so forth?

Actually, yes, I do, and I have:

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3266588#3266588

Quote

People in Houston, TX aren't "gun nuts", they're just people who've grown up with and around guns all their lives, and live in a region where it's very common for most average households to have at least 1 gun, so they understand them. So their attitudes on the issue are shaped by that.

and...

People in White Plains, NY aren't "gun-o-phobes", they're just people who live in a region where it's quite uncommon for average people to own guns, most of whom have never held or fired a gun, or had any live exposure to guns other than glimpsing a policeman's holstered service weapon. So their attitudes on the issue are shaped by that.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Quote

This is one of those situations in that what is good for the person as an individual may not be good for the society as a whole. And incidentally when something is bad (or not good) for the society it ends up affecting the individuals.

By what misbegotten logic is a person having the means to protect themselves from violent crime "not be good for society as a whole"?

If you are packing heat, it may be good for you. If everybody is packing heat although it may be good for every and each individual it will contribute to gun proliferation in the society.
You may believe that gun proliferation is great, but i disagree. Whereas culture may be a factor, gun availability is probable the biggest factor in the crime rate in the U.S. (ending up in deaths)
You may argue that if a criminal wants really bad a gun he is going to get it, but in Spain, where guns are not yet as readily available as in the U.S. it is not the case. Since there is not that much ofert of handweapons the price is quite high, and since a knife usually does its job as well as a gun for most crime purposes not very many criminals want to spend that much money on a gun.
So gun proliferation in society will come back to bite the individual when most of the crimes are commited with a gun rather than a knife, taking in considerations that even if you are packing heat the survability against a gun is much lower than against a knife.