What America can learn from Switzerland re. responsible gun ownership

[BENESSE]

This is the smartest, most compelling write up I've read so far on the subject. A lot I didn't know, especially some interesting parallels of Swiss history to ours. I wholeheartedly agree with what they've done would support a similar approach here.
All in all, food for thought and genuine reflection.

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

Highlights (sections bolded by me):

"As one historian summarises: "Switzerland was created in battle, reached its present dimensions by conquest and defended its existence by armed neutrality thereafter." The experience of Swiss history has made national independence and power virtually synonymous with an armed citizenry."

Analysis of Switzerland does demolish the simplistic notion "more guns, more gun crime." More important than the number of guns is their cultural context. In Switzerland, guns are an important element of a cohesive social structure that keeps crime low.

Although guns are more available to the Swiss, Swiss gun culture is more authoritarian than America's. Gun ownership is a mandatory community duty, not a matter of individual free choice. In Switzerland, defence of the nation is not a job for professional soldiers or for people who join the army to learn technical skills for civilian jobs. Defence of the nation is the responsibility of every male citizen.

Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

What have we learned from Switzerland?' Guns in themselves are not a cause of gun crime; if they were, everyone in Switzerland would long ago have been shot in a domestic quarrel.

Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation's crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime. Young adults in Zurich are subject to minimal gun control, but strict social control, and they commit almost no crime.


America-with its traditions of individual liberty-cannot import Switzerland's culture of social control. Teenagers, women, and almost everyone else have more freedom in America than in Switzerland.
What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger. "

[finallyME]

Great article. Thanks.

[Geek]

I agree that everyone should learn firearm safety, just as everyone should learn to swim or ride a bicycle. If we did that, I am sure the gun control debate would be much different.

[Pal334]

"B" Very timely and informative. TY

[LowKey]

B - the only problem with that article is its condescending language.
Using terms like "going off the deep end" is more to rile a sense of indignation in the reader.
Like "ya, they must be crazy". RAwr... "oh, yeah, and get this... they really must be crazy." AR Ar AR.
The psychological impact rating of the wording is very closely balanced in this one though.

Instead of being a completely fact based article, it comes off as being more of a pitch.
Granted, it was written in 1990, well before the last AWB, and it was written for the American Rifleman.
Would that same article be written today? I kinda doubt it. At least not in quite the same way.

BTW, found this last night. Very enlightening. Should be a Must Read for every Senator and Representative in this fight.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Also read the 4 examples of statistics not considered facts.

[BENESSE]

Instead of being a completely fact based article, it comes off as being more of a pitch.
Granted, it was written in 1990, well before the last AWB, and it was written for the American Rifleman.
Would that same article be written today? I kinda doubt it. At least not in quite the same way.

You may feel condescended to, I'm impressed and would be more than happy with their set up. All in all, there's something to be gleaned from their way of doing things.
We can continue with business as usual and loose or we can be smarter without giving anything up but possibly gaining even more than we have now.

Here's a more recent write up and an excellent one at that... (Dec 20, 2012)

"Even as the gun-control (http://topics.time.com/gun-control/) debate rises again in the U.S. in the aftermath of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Conn. (http://topics.time.com/connecticut/), the gun-loving Swiss are not about to lay down their arms. Guns are ubiquitous in this neutral nation, with sharpshooting considered a fun and wholesome recreational activity for people of all ages.
Even though Switzerland has not been involved in an armed conflict since a standoff between Catholics and Protestants in 1847, the Swiss are very serious not only about their right to own weapons but also to carry them around in public. Because of this general acceptance and even pride in gun ownership, nobody bats an eye at the sight of a civilian riding a bus, bike or motorcycle to the shooting range, with a rifle slung across the shoulder....

One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.
“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.
“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME.
That sense of social and civic responsibility is one of the reasons the Swiss have never allowed their guns to come under fire."



Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/#ixzz2Hil7HXwr

[Winter]

Good stuff B.

Interestingly, America was designed to have a citizen militia based defense and not have standing armies. It is that duty to defend that may have a great societal impact on the Swiss that is not common here. It may be the fact that the people of Switzerland are responsible for it's defense that makes them so responsible with firearms.

The militia idea worked great, Teddy Roosevelt attacked Peurto Rico with a volunteer force made of of members of many militias from Kentucky to Texas. That's the great thing about militias. You can't attack anything without volunteers to do it. If the public supports a war, they grab their gear and go to it, if not, they say no and stay home.

[crashdive123]

I think the most important take away from that article has nothing to do with guns. Good stuff B.

[Stiffy]

That information provides an excellent reference point. Thanks.

[Dennis]

Great article.

[WolfVanZandt]

There's a lot of differences between Switzerland and the U.S. It is my understanding that everyone serves in the Swiss military (so they know quite well how to use guns and use them responsibly - responsibility is out the door in American culture). Everyone works in Switzerland. If someone doesn't have a job, they clean the streets (something that's badly needed here in the U.S.), and street cleaning is a respected profession there. Therefore, the Swiss have ownership in their community. There is no cult of individuality like there is here. There is no gratuitous entitlement like there is here.

America might be said to be dying from a lack of responsibility. Certainly not every American is irresponsible, but the one's who are are the ones making the changes. We're an irresponsible culture. If I had to vote on a wet/dry issue for the US, I would vote dry simply because Americans don't know how to drink responsibly. Most Americans don't think they have any hand in the future of their country - no inherent purpose other than just the purposes they set themselves. All classes feel they're entitled to everything they can milk out of the system. They don't want to work for what they get. They don't care about their relations - they're not willing to put the work into cultivating their relationships in the world and they get ticked that their friendships are of such poor quality. And it's how they're being brought up and how they're bringing their children up.

And Joe Biden speculates that the gun violence may be related to a coarsening of American society (but he doesn't know). Does the man ever get out? Do they keep him locked in a closet in the White House?

[BENESSE]

What sends me into a blind rage is this arrogance that "we" are above learning from anyone who has figured it out and lives the example while we're grasping at ineffective straws and drowning with the mind set of "GD, nobody's gonna tell me anything 'cause I know it all!" Where do we think our youth picks up the same attitude?
Instead of nitpicking why something isn't going to work, we'd be better off picking that which we know can work.

[WolfVanZandt]

Nothing to add to that except I must join in with a hearty "Amen".

[Pal334]

"B",, you again are spot on. Only fools don't learn from history

[Bearskin Grills]

http://the-new-lair.com/forum/gallery/14/3-120113212210-14466710.jpeg

[Winter]

As an American, after reading more on Switzerland, I could not live there. Reminds me of Logan's Run a little bit.

[Geek]

Then check out Finland. Pretty much the same as Switzerland re: guns. I've visited the Finland and was very impressed.

[Winter]

Finland has a Nazi party still, don't they?

[cbr6fs]

There's a lot of differences between Switzerland and the U.S. It is my understanding that everyone serves in the Swiss military (so they know quite well how to use guns and use them responsibly - responsibility is out the door in American culture). Everyone works in Switzerland. If someone doesn't have a job, they clean the streets (something that's badly needed here in the U.S.), and street cleaning is a respected profession there. Therefore, the Swiss have ownership in their community. There is no cult of individuality like there is here. There is no gratuitous entitlement like there is here.

America might be said to be dying from a lack of responsibility. Certainly not every American is irresponsible, but the one's who are are the ones making the changes. We're an irresponsible culture. If I had to vote on a wet/dry issue for the US, I would vote dry simply because Americans don't know how to drink responsibly. Most Americans don't think they have any hand in the future of their country - no inherent purpose other than just the purposes they set themselves. All classes feel they're entitled to everything they can milk out of the system. They don't want to work for what they get. They don't care about their relations - they're not willing to put the work into cultivating their relationships in the world and they get ticked that their friendships are of such poor quality. And it's how they're being brought up and how they're bringing their children up.

And Joe Biden speculates that the gun violence may be related to a coarsening of American society (but he doesn't know). Does the man ever get out? Do they keep him locked in a closet in the White House?


Great post.

I'm far from a expert but i have spent some time in Switzerland enough to have several Swiss friend, plus i've spent a fair bit of time in the states as well, and i completely agree.

It's a tough call.
As a hunter and enthusiastic shooter it really does pain me to even think of the words "gun control", problem is though i don't see any other solution that will work within 1 generation to slow down all the killing over there.

I say slow down because there is absolutely no way you can stop our species killing each other.
For me the thing that really hits home is, IF someone is determined to take another persons life then why the hell should we as a society make it easy for them?
In the recent cases of mass shootings, why should a society make it easy for scrawny kids that would go down with 1 punch to commit murder so easily and on such a massive scale?

If every civilian gun was banned tomorrow the sad fact remains that there are THAT many guns in the US that it would still need a generation or even 2 before the criminal section of society started finding it difficult to get hold of guns.

What can be done though is again, not make it SO easy for criminals to gain access to guns, the first step is educating gun enthusiasts to keep their weapons and ammunition secure, in most cases locked in a safe where the license holder or legal gun owner is the only person with the key and combination.

In the recent school shooting case this would have prevented him from using a weapon that's painfully effective at taking lives on a mass scale.
It will also make it tougher for criminals to get access to firearms in the long term.

[Winter]

Great post.

.

The US gets 700 tons of cocaine into the country every yr. Cocaine is illegal.

If guns are banned, criminals will still have access to guns.

Your argument is pure fantasy. I don't mean to be rude, but laws only effect the law abiding.

It's only as hard for someone to illegally obtain a firearm as it is to illegally obtain cocaine. Only difference is that if guns become as valuable as cocaine, crime will skyrocket as criminals steal guns from law abiding citizens.

[Bearskin Grills]

The US gets 700 tons of cocaine into the country every yr. Cocaine is illegal.

If guns are banned, criminals will still have access to guns.

Your argument is pure fantasy. I don't mean to be rude, but laws only effect the law abiding.

It's only as hard for someone to illegally obtain a firearm as it is to illegally obtain cocaine. Only difference is that if guns become as valuable as cocaine, crime will skyrocket as criminals steal guns from law abiding citizens.

anytime anything is made illegal the black market for it mushrooms. make guns illegal and you will have more illegal guns on the street. the demand will need to be filled. like prohibition, like drugs today. there is a black market for guns today and that is the result of criminals, gangs, and all who need a steady stream of unregistered, untraceable weapons.

[Winter]

I concur wholeheartedly.

[Williepete]

Winter, I would sure like to know why you feel that way?

I feel the articles posted really shows what is the main problem in America these days, no responiblly and the give me factor. Everyone blames someone else for their problems and we have raised a generation of lazy clowns. We really have lost the family. No not everyone fits into these two things, but too many people that don't, will not work on changing things.

Bill

[Williepete]

As an American, after reading more on Switzerland, I could not live there. Reminds me of Logan's Run a little bit.

This is what I was referring to. This is what happens when you get introruped by the BOSS


Bill

[Winter]

Winter, I would sure like to know why you feel that way?

I feel the articles posted really shows what is the main problem in America these days, no responiblly and the give me factor. Everyone blames someone else for their problems and we have raised a generation of lazy clowns. We really have lost the family. No not everyone fits into these two things, but too many people that don't, will not work on changing things.

Bill

Bill, not sure what you are referring to on that first sentence.

I kinda agree on your second point, but. Responsibility is earned, not legislated. The 1950's family unit is gone unless one parent has a job that allows for the other to stay home. Kids need a mother and father at the same time, IMO. I have done my best with my kids and I'm proud of them all.

What this country truly needs is some suffering to make us all know what is important in life. We are all spoiled. You like like a man in your 60th yr or so, do you have only one TV like I did as a kid? Do you have 3 channels unless you rearrange the tin foil?

I agree with you though.

[WolfVanZandt]

Well, those of us who aren't suffering already, I expect we will be soon.

The US protects criminals while it's getting harder and harder for innocent citizens to live in society. It rewards people who want to live off others and penalizes people who want to be independent.

Hmmm.......I'm 59 and I remember being pretty excited about the TV we had, and now I don't have one at all by choice (but I do have a computer).

The problem with responsibility is that many (most?) people think it's a bad thing. I always thought that responsibility was a virtue. People want as little responsibility as possible now days.

[Geek]

I feel that what we have is several generations, not just one, that have lost the sense that freedom needs to be defended. People are so confident that we are the strongest nation on earth that they can't picture a day when that is no longer true, either due to an outside force, or due to chipping away of freedom from within.

Meanwhile, any dispassionate view would conclude that we are not as dominant in the world as we once were, and we are dealing with an ever expanding government. The survivalist movement is partly due to a small number recognizing this disconnect. The reason we are seen a somewhat crazy is due to this fundamentally different worldview.

Meanwhile, a country like Switzerland has never had the delusion of being dominant in the world. They have achieved their freedom through a tradition of everyone knowing enough to participate in their defense, and making any attempt at invading the country just not worth the cost. During WWII, Yamamoto discouraged invasion of the US by Japan with the phrase that if Japan invaded the US they would find "a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass". That was true of the US then and is true of Switzerland today.

[cbr6fs]

The US gets 700 tons of cocaine into the country every yr. Cocaine is illegal.

If guns are banned, criminals will still have access to guns.

Your argument is pure fantasy. I don't mean to be rude, but laws only effect the law abiding.

It's only as hard for someone to illegally obtain a firearm as it is to illegally obtain cocaine. Only difference is that if guns become as valuable as cocaine, crime will skyrocket as criminals steal guns from law abiding citizens.

No offence taken.
We all have our own opinions based upon our own personalities and life experiences, so we're just talking and offering opinions :thumbs_up:

I would like to challenge your statement though.

I do agree that if a person is determined enough they will find what ever it is they want, be that a drug addict searching for drugs or a criminal searching for guns.

What needs to be taken into consideration though is that, if it's harder to steal guns then it will be tougher for crims to get them.
Tougher for crims to get guns = higher price on the black market
Higher price on the black market = less bottom feeder (with the least amount to loose) crims can afford, therefore carry guns

It's a knock on effect, the more difficult it is for crims to get guns the higher the price, this has proved true with everything on the black market, from jeans and toilet paper in the old USSR, through to certain drugs that have been clamped down on in the USA.

[Williepete]

Bill, not sure what you are referring to on that first sentence.

I kinda agree on your second point, but. Responsibility is earned, not legislated. The 1950's family unit is gone unless one parent has a job that allows for the other to stay home. Kids need a mother and father at the same time, IMO. I have done my best with my kids and I'm proud of them all.

What this country truly needs is some suffering to make us all know what is important in life. We are all spoiled. You like like a man in your 60th yr or so, do you have only one TV like I did as a kid? Do you have 3 channels unless you rearrange the tin foil?

I agree with you though.

My second post was what I was referring to, other wise I agree with you 1000 %.

Bill

[Geek]

No offence taken.
We all have our own opinions based upon our own personalities and life experiences, so we're just talking and offering opinions :thumbs_up:

I would like to challenge your statement though.

I do agree that if a person is determined enough they will find what ever it is they want, be that a drug addict searching for drugs or a criminal searching for guns.

What needs to be taken into consideration though is that, if it's harder to steal guns then it will be tougher for crims to get them.
Tougher for crims to get guns = higher price on the black market
Higher price on the black market = less bottom feeder (with the least amount to loose) crims can afford, therefore carry guns

It's a knock on effect, the more difficult it is for crims to get guns the higher the price, this has proved true with everything on the black market, from jeans and toilet paper in the old USSR, through to certain drugs that have been clamped down on in the USA.

How's that working out in England, Australia, or Chicago?

[Rick]

There are about 330,000 +/- guns stolen each year in the U.S. but folks need to realize that not all of them are from private owners. Gun shop thefts (we just had a doozy locally committed by a DOD member!) and interstate shipments also account for a pretty high % of those. The ATF's National Tracing Center is responsible for those thefts.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/man-accused-in-gun-thefts-linked-to-law-enforcement

Here are some numbers I put together . Just thought you might like to know.

What the 1994 ban accomplished.

The FBI 2002 UCR, during the height of the 1994 ban shows a number of “total gun homicides” by year:
1998 = 9220
1999 = 8480
2000 = 8661
2001 = 8890
2002 = 9369

The FBI 2011 UCR, well past the previous ban. Again looking at “total gun homicides” by year:
2007 = 10,129
2008 = 9528
2009 = 9199
2010 = 8874
2011 = 8583

Now let’s compare the number of guns between 2002 during the height of the 1994 ban vs. today. Since total number of firearms owned can only be an approximation let’s look at manufacturing data collect by the BATF.

2002 = 3,366,895

2011 = 6,541,886

The UCRs show no appreciable difference in the number of gun murders during the ban and well after even when the number of weapons manufactured nearly doubled. Further, it shows no support for the more guns = more death nonsense.

2002 UCR
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nmurder03.html#t210

2011 UCR
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

2002 BATF
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2002-firearms-manufacturers-export-report.pdf

2011 BATF
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/afmer/2011-final-firearms-manufacturing-export-report.pdf

[cbr6fs]

How's that working out in England, Australia, or Chicago?

No idea in Chicago or Australia as i have not lived in either places, but certainly in England it's working out extremely well.


Should clarify again, i'm not against guns nor am i saying that they should be banned.
My own personal opinion is that, if the vast vast majority of guns (certain areas NEED allowances, like for example wilderness areas where there is a threat from animals) were kept under extremely strict lock and key, there would be a noticeable reduction in gun death within 10 years.

As i say it will NOT deter those determined to get guns, nor will it stop us humans trying to wilfully kill each other, i do honestly believe that it will markedly reduce the amount of gun deaths in the USA though.

It does need to be country wide though and it does need to be enforced.

Enforcing it will be tough, how do ou think it could be effectively enforced?

[Geek]

No idea in Chicago or Australia as i have not lived in either places, but certainly in England it's working out extremely well.


Should clarify again, i'm not against guns nor am i saying that they should be banned.
My own personal opinion is that, if the vast vast majority of guns (certain areas NEED allowances, like for example wilderness areas where there is a threat from animals) were kept under extremely strict lock and key, there would be a noticeable reduction in gun death within 10 years.

As i say it will NOT deter those determined to get guns, nor will it stop us humans trying to wilfully kill each other, i do honestly believe that it will markedly reduce the amount of gun deaths in the USA though.

It does need to be country wide though and it does need to be enforced.

Enforcing it will be tough, how do ou think it could be effectively enforced?

England is now consider to be the most violent country in the EU, with all categories of violent crime on the rise. Australia the same. Chicago manages to hit a new high in homicides each year. I chose those examples because they are all abject failures.

[cbr6fs]

England is now consider to be the most violent country in the EU, with all categories of violent crime on the rise. Australia the same. Chicago manages to hit a new high in homicides each year. I chose those examples because they are all abject failures.

Are we talking about guns here or violent crime, as they are 2 completely different subjects.

[Williepete]

Last I heard from a lady over there, the Bobbies were starting to carry, so I not sure about the guns part but it sure has to be bad. Because sometime back the Docs were trying to outlaw knifes, and it was reported on here somewhere recently that you can't even carry a knife.

Bill

[crashdive123]

Are we talking about guns here or violent crime, as they are 2 completely different subjects.

Not completely unrelated at all. If a thug looking to mug somebody for their wallet or purse knows there is the possibility of the victim being armed, they are less likely to commit that crime.

But that is not the issue.

The Constitution of the United States acknowledges our rights - it does not grant them.

[WolfVanZandt]

Gun runners want to sell guns. That's pretty much bedrock, therefore, they're not going to raise the prices of guns on the blackmarket to where they can't sell them. Even if criminals have a more difficult time getting guns (they won't) they will still get them and law-abiding citizens won't be getting them. Criminals will still be the ones with the guns.

[Bearskin Grills]

What happens in countries that ban guns -

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.


Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems.

The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.


It also recorded the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU, and the highest absolute number of burglaries, with double the number of offences recorded in Germany and France.

Overall, 5.4 million crimes were recorded in the UK in 2007 - more than 10 a minute - second only to Sweden.

Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said: "This is a real damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock-on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

"We're now on our fourth Home Secretary in this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction."

The figures were sourced from Eurostat, the European Commission's database of statistics. They are gathered using official sources in the countries concerned such as the national statistics office, the national prison administration, ministries of the interior or justice, and police.

A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

[Geek]

Are we talking about guns here or violent crime, as they are 2 completely different subjects.

We are talking about violent crime. One of the main reasons to have a gun is to be able to protect yourself from two legged predators. Being able to say gun deaths are down, but homicides overall are up is a pointless trade, unless you are a criminal and find it more convenient to have your victims unarmed.

[WolfVanZandt]

The brainless solution is "Get rid of guns and no one will be able to use them to hurt others."

We've got to stop with the brainless "first thing that pops into our minds" solutions. As Bearskin's post suggests, we need to tackle deep rooted social problems. I don't know if our elected officials are stupid or lazy or all the above but they're not getting the job done. They consider themselves the parents of the world and they'll do what they think is right as long as we live under their roof. Unfortunately, they're just (evidently) not that bright and we're in big trouble.

The recent shooters are not killing people because they have guns. They're killing people because they want to kill people. If they didn't have guns, they'd use bombs. If they didn't have guns or bombs, they'd be crashing cars into buildings or poisoning water supplies. We could control chemicals, cars, and water........we could just lock everyone in their homes. Or we could figure out what's going on........of course, it's entirely possible that part of the answer is spiritual and a lot of our elected officials certainly don't want to go there. Honesty and humility, things that are quite necessary for effective problem solving, are also in very short supply up there in Washington.

[cbr6fs]

I understood that the thread was discussing responsible gun ownership, so that's where my post was aimed.


Last I heard from a lady over there, the Bobbies were starting to carry, so I not sure about the guns part but it sure has to be bad. Because sometime back the Docs were trying to outlaw knifes, and it was reported on here somewhere recently that you can't even carry a knife.

Bill

There are cops in the UK that do have access to guns as a armed response unit, the general bobby on the street does not carry a gun though.
Violent crime is a major problem everywhere and in some areas in the UK it is no exception.
Comparing violent crime rates in various countries is not possible in the same way as comparing murder rates by guns simply because each country has different categories as what classes as "violent crime", so it's not comparing apples with apples.

Knives are not outlawed, as in many states in the US there are restrictions to what knives you can carry (i.e, no flick, balisong knives etc) other than that you can carry what ever you want as long as you have a reasonable reason to carry it.


Not completely unrelated at all. If a thug looking to mug somebody for their wallet or purse knows there is the possibility of the victim being armed, they are less likely to commit that crime.

But that is not the issue.

The Constitution of the United States acknowledges our rights - it does not grant them.

I disagree.
In my experience if a criminal knows someone is armed then they will simply attack with a greater force and with equivalent arms.

Most criminals do what they do because they feel they have no choice, be that because they are to lazy to get a job and work like the rest of us, or because they need to get their next fix.
So they will still be robberies if every single person carried a gun, the difference is that the robber is more likely to proceed with a massive demonstration of force to overwhelm the victim.

Another thing worth thinking about is, if every civilian was armed then it would be a blood bath as people would try to defend themselves under stressful situations.
It's not like they are going to have the forethought to check back stops or where a stray bullet will go.


Gun runners want to sell guns. That's pretty much bedrock, therefore, they're not going to raise the prices of guns on the blackmarket to where they can't sell them. Even if criminals have a more difficult time getting guns (they won't) they will still get them and law-abiding citizens won't be getting them. Criminals will still be the ones with the guns.

Problem is though the criminals over there are already armed.
To try and restrict the amount of guns they have access to you need to start somewhere.

I will clarify again.
I am NOT for banning anything what-so-ever and i felt i had been perfectly clear about that, i'm also not anti-guns either.

I just don't see why it should be so easy for criminals to have access to guns.
To my eyes it's no real world compromise to have guns secured with the license owner being extremely anal about who has access to them.

To be clear again this will NOT stop people killing each other BUT there are over 130,000 guns stolen each each in the US, if keep firearms locked up stops a majority of those then it's a start.


What happens in countries that ban guns -

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

The United Kingdom is the violent crime capital of Europe and has one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America, according to new research.


Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

Opposition leaders said the disclosures were a "damning indictment" of the Government's failure to tackle deep-rooted social problems.

The figures combined crime statistics for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.


It also recorded the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU, and the highest absolute number of burglaries, with double the number of offences recorded in Germany and France.

Overall, 5.4 million crimes were recorded in the UK in 2007 - more than 10 a minute - second only to Sweden.

Chris Grayling, shadow home secretary, said: "This is a real damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock-on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

"We're now on our fourth Home Secretary in this parliament, and all we are getting is a rehash of old initiatives that didn't work the first time round. More than ever Britain needs a change of direction."

The figures were sourced from Eurostat, the European Commission's database of statistics. They are gathered using official sources in the countries concerned such as the national statistics office, the national prison administration, ministries of the interior or justice, and police.

A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Please see my response above.
I would also like to add:

1/ This has nothing what-so-ever to do with responsible gun ownership
2/ The UK having it's own problems does not detract from the amount of people that are being shot in the USA
3/ What is classified as a Violent crime in the UK in NOT the same as in the USA or other countries so the statistics are fundamentally flawed

[cbr6fs]

We are talking about violent crime. One of the main reasons to have a gun is to be able to protect yourself from two legged predators. Being able to say gun deaths are down, but homicides overall are up is a pointless trade, unless you are a criminal and find it more convenient to have your victims unarmed.

That may be your main reason, for me the ONLY reason i use guns is to hunt and practice.

Personally in my 43 civilian years on this planet i have been able to protect my family and myself without needing or wanting a gun for self defence, as do a vast vast majority of people around the world.

Having a gun for self defence is an extremely complicated topic and as i've said a few times i do not see how it has anything to do with responsible gun ownership.
But i will say this, i have personally witnessed extremely well trained soldiers under fire in a war zone unable to return fire.

Pointing a gun at someone with the express intent of killing them is not something most people can do, even in a stressful situation.
Add to that shoot through, positioning and the person having no care where the bullet stops and it's a extremely dangerous situation for everyone, not just the criminal.


The brainless solution is "Get rid of guns and no one will be able to use them to hurt others."

We've got to stop with the brainless "first thing that pops into our minds" solutions. As Bearskin's post suggests, we need to tackle deep rooted social problems. I don't know if our elected officials are stupid or lazy or all the above but they're not getting the job done. They consider themselves the parents of the world and they'll do what they think is right as long as we live under their roof. Unfortunately, they're just (evidently) not that bright and we're in big trouble.

The recent shooters are not killing people because they have guns. They're killing people because they want to kill people. If they didn't have guns, they'd use bombs. If they didn't have guns or bombs, they'd be crashing cars into buildings or poisoning water supplies. We could control chemicals, cars, and water........we could just lock everyone in their homes. Or we could figure out what's going on........of course, it's entirely possible that part of the answer is spiritual and a lot of our elected officials certainly don't want to go there. Honesty and humility, things that are quite necessary for effective problem solving, are also in very short supply up there in Washington.

I have not read any response in this thread that has stated nor even insinuated that anyone should "Get rid of guns"
In fact i have clearly stated several times that i am not for banning anything, so please refrain from suggesting posters are "brainless" unless you have clearly read and understood the posts.

I will say again:
I am NOT suggesting, advising or recommending banning anything

[WolfVanZandt]

Wow, sensitive. I can't imagine how you could have gotten that I was calling anyone on this forum "brainless", especially on this forum since I did read the posts and I figured anyone who had read the posts would have known that I was not referring to anyone here. Maaaaaybe not.

I was actually aiming the "brainless" at some folks in the upper echelons of government. And, yes, there are quite a few that mean, "get rid of guns" and many think the logical end of gun control is "get rid of the ownership of guns by civilians."

[cbr6fs]

Wow, sensitive. I can't imagine how you could have gotten that I was calling anyone on this forum "brainless", especially on this forum since I did read the posts and I figured anyone who had read the posts would have known that I was not referring to anyone here. Maaaaaybe not.

I was actually aiming the "brainless" at some folks in the upper echelons of government. And, yes, there are quite a few that mean, "get rid of guns" and many think the logical end of gun control is "get rid of the ownership of guns by civilians."

So to clarify, you join a thread and post an opinion on something no one has discussed about people no one is talking about and then call an op sensitive because he has absolutely no idea what you are talking about :huh:

[Geek]

I'm not sure where you are, but several attempts have been made to determine how many crimes are prevented in the US each year due to civilians using a gun. Most of those are on the level where civilian produces gun and the criminal either ceases aggression and get arrested or flees the scene. The numbers range from a little under 1,000,000 to over 3,000,000 depending on the study. Most of us would prefer not to have 1,000,000 more successful violent criminal acts per year, as defined here in the US.

You may have never had a need to prevent a violent act perpetrated against yourself or a family member, but it happens too often in our society and many people do have guns for expressly that purpose. Personally, I'd like to see more guns, not less.

[WolfVanZandt]

The brainless solution is "Get rid of guns and no one will be able to use them to hurt others."

Ah, fer cryin' out loud. The adjective is "brainless" the noun it refers to is "solution". I didn't call anyone brainless and if I'm off beam with the thread, I apologize. But I didn't insult anyone. You are over-reacting. So, yes, I did state an opinion. I think it applies. If you don't, fine, ignore it. I'll just get out of this one before it blows up worse.

[edr730]

CB...you may feel a bit out of place with you opinions in the UK as well as here at this site. Maybe not, anyway, I don't take offense. Despite some recent biased surveys and media statements, most people still believe in the 2nd amendment here in the US. Many of those feel very strongly about it and are sensitive to even the sound of, or the opinions of those who are in favor of further "infringement". I'll admit I'd be one of those, but I don't accuse you of wanting to ban guns or being Piers Morgan.

It's true that you can not compare apples to oranges and that is why we can not compare the US with any other area whether it is UK, Central America or Switzerland. Not only are cultures and situations different, but each country has a completely different method of collecting data. For example, when people commit suicide in the UK you either take a plane to Switzerland where the doctors will do it for you or you step in front of a train.....the corpses are there but since it wasn't done with a gun nobodies counting. I believe, also, (not positive) that UK counts convictions and we count bodies. But, it would be a difficult argument to make that we would have lower homicides by following either UK or Switzerland.

Although I believe the 2nd amendment is a trump card for all the statistics, if they want to make true comparisons let them compare apples with apples within the same country. Let them get the charts out and show areas and states with concealed and carry laws with those areas and states without. Let them compare "gun free" zones with those that are not. Let them at least give some kind of comparisons or some kind of impression that they not fueling emotionalism rather than make an intelligent argument.

[Geek]

This is just one of the millions of examples we have here:

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21009594541815/police-clerk-kills-would-be-robber/

Generally this stuff doesn't make it out of the local news because it is so common. Internationally, you wouldn't necessarily be aware of it as a US problem.

[BENESSE]

This is just one of the millions of examples we have here:

http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21009594541815/police-clerk-kills-would-be-robber/

Generally this stuff doesn't make it out of the local news because it is so common. Internationally, you wouldn't necessarily be aware of it as a US problem.

Statistics based on examples like that (how many lives were saved and criminals derailed by armed resistance) would go a loooong way in shifting the public opinion in favor of lawful gun possession. This is where NRA falls short IMO, and excitable, barely coherent pro-gun talking heads turn people off even if the essence of their message makes sense. I understand what they're talking about but people who aren't predisposed to buy into it can't get past the delivery.
We have to understand that when we make our case we aren't preaching to the choir.

[2dumb2kwit]

Statistics based on examples like that (how many lives were saved and criminals derailed by armed resistance) would go a loooong way in shifting the public opinion in favor of lawful gun possession. This is where NRA falls short IMO, and excitable, barely coherent pro-gun talking heads turn people off even if the essence of their message makes sense. I understand what they're talking about but people who aren't predisposed to buy into it can't get past the delivery.
We have to understand that when we make our case we aren't preaching to the choir.

I we were only half as good as the media is, at getting people to think what we want, we'd have no problem. I want to scream, every time I watch the news and see them push negative gun thoughts into the heads of people who don't know any better. For example, they use phrases like "the epidemic of children being killed by guns". I would think that anyone who hears that, and doesn't know the truth, would think that children are being shot to death at a huge rate. The truth is that 10 times as many children die in swimming pools, every year. They make claims about "assault rifles" killing so many people, when the truth is that they kill less people than hammers and baseball bats do. They use phrases like "high powered assault rifles". The truth is that most people won't use them to hunt deer, because they are not powerful enough.

We need to start using phrases like "life saving guns", or "defensive rifles". It's all about the marketing, as you well know. Perhaps you should work on "marketing" the fact that guns save lives. Many, many, more lives than they take.

We also need to educate people as to the meaning and importance of the second amendment. We are still talking about a self defense issue, but a whole lot of people can't wrap their heads around needing to be protected from the Gov't.

[Wildthang]

I think the problem has very little to do with guns. People all over the world, ( not just in the US ) are getting too lazy, corrupt, and have no compassion for life itself to be responsible with guns.
So now we have millions and probably billions of guns everywhere, it seems to me that banning guns is too little too late. Put armed guards in all schools and public places where large crowds gather, and most of the violence will stop. That will work much better and much quicker than trying to get millions of people to give up their guns.
Banning guns now will not help until this entire generation has passed on and that will take a long time. and even then, there will be millions of guns unaccounted for!
Just think if guns suddenly became legal for countrys where people cant have guns now. Murders would most likely go through the roof, and make our problems seem small!

[Geek]

I rather enjoy this site for examples of positive uses of guns:

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/

I disagree that making guns legal where they are currently illegal would necessarily cause murders to increase. I think you'd really need to look at that on a country by country basis. For instance, for the UK to loosen up would probably result in more gun deaths but far fewer acts of violence of other types.

[2dumb2kwit]

I rather enjoy this site for examples of positive uses of guns:

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/

I disagree that making guns legal where they are currently illegal would necessarily cause murders to increase. I think you'd really need to look at that on a country by country basis. For instance, for the UK to loosen up would probably result in more gun deaths but far fewer acts of violence of other types.

I like that they keep a monthly defensive gun use report.

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/2423/December-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html

As a side note, has anyone else noticed that a lot of home invasions seem to involve 2, 3, even 4 bad guys coming in? That seems to me to be a good argument for higher capacity self defense guns.

[BENESSE]

What the gun lobby needs is a smart, fact driven PR/Marketing campaign using real people and real stories where guns have saved lives. (as mentioned in the site above)
You've got to fight emotion with like emotion. (Hot headedness of the likes of Nugent does more harm than good.)
Stay on topic and don't make an issues of something that isn't one.

[Geek]

I like that they keep a monthly defensive gun use report.

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/2423/December-2012-Defensive-Gun-Use-Report.html

As a side note, has anyone else noticed that a lot of home invasions seem to involve 2, 3, even 4 bad guys coming in? That seems to me to be a good argument for higher capacity self defense guns.

That is absolutely a good reason for higher capacity magazines. In the absence of high capacity magazines, practicing magazine exchanges will become a popular pastime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

See if you can match this guy.

[cbr6fs]

I'm not sure where you are, but several attempts have been made to determine how many crimes are prevented in the US each year due to civilians using a gun. Most of those are on the level where civilian produces gun and the criminal either ceases aggression and get arrested or flees the scene. The numbers range from a little under 1,000,000 to over 3,000,000 depending on the study. Most of us would prefer not to have 1,000,000 more successful violent criminal acts per year, as defined here in the US.

You may have never had a need to prevent a violent act perpetrated against yourself or a family member, but it happens too often in our society and many people do have guns for expressly that purpose. Personally, I'd like to see more guns, not less.

That's a bit like putting the chicken before the egg though.
If the criminals were not armed in the first place there would be no need to be armed to deter them.

I'm not posting to change any ones mind nor stir up any anti-gun discussions, as i say i do enjoy both hunting and shooting so i do have a foot in the "keep guns accessible" camp.

I do think though that it'd be a brave and rather stupid person that would deny that the USA has a massive problem with people getting shot.
Statistics and figures can be argued over and picked at till the universe ends, it's really only picking around the edges of what is obviously a MASSIVE problem.

Some believe that if more people were armed it would help.
Personally i think that would be a massive mistake for the simple reason that, some folks are not skilled or responsible to have a drivers license, other folks are not responsible enough to own animals, kids are taken into care every day of the week in every country in the world because some parents are not responsible enough to bring them up.

So it's obvious to me that some people are simply not responsible enough to own or operate a firearm in public (a range is a different matter).
It is extremely frustrating and sad that us responsible shooters would have to pay a price for these irresponsible people BUT that's the price we pay for us humans being social animals and living in a society i'm afraid.
I think there is not a person on here that doesn't know even one person that we feel would be a hazard to themselves and anyone around them if they were armed.
I'm not talking a bad person, just someone that's either irresponsible, spends most of their life intoxicated or just plain stupid.

We can vote towards a police state, were armed guards are posted in every public place, schools, malls, restaurants etc.
Problem there though is that:
a/ Who is controlling these armed guards, and how long will it be before they start stretching their powers?
b/ Who is judging that these armed people are qualified and experienced enough to guard the ones we love?
c/ With that many public places and schools we are talking hundreds of thousands if not millions of these armed guards, call me a pessimist but in my experiences of human nature it's a statistical foregone conclusion that some of these will be irresponsible, mentally ill, criminal or just plain stupid, so who will police and guard against the guards when inevitably some "go bad"?
d/ With around 16,000 accidental shooting in the USA each year, again it's a statistical foregone conclusion that eventually ones of these guards will accidentally shoot someone, so who will police them?

I can think of only 6 people i've met in my life that i would trust to be armed around my kids.
If my kids school posted a complete stranger who was armed then as a parent what control would i have on picking who that is?
I have to say that for me personally, unless it was someone that i not only trusted my life with, but that of my kids then there is no way in hell my kids would go to a school patrolled by some armed stranger.
No way, no how.

The final nail in the coffin for me is, for a armed guard to operate it mean the S has already HTF, that's some ones kid, brother Dad, daughter, sister, mother that's not going home that night simply because the armed guard did not respond in time.

Columbine is a prime example.
Absolutely no doubt the armed guard there prevented more lives being lost, no doubt at all.
BUT kids were still murdered, and for me that puts the nail in the coffin for armed guards, surely as parents we should aim for an ideal of preventing these tragedies rather than damage limitation?


It's tough because a shooter i want to continue my hobby, but as a parent i also want my kids to grow up without having armed guards escort them through life.
The tough part is, how do we as a society prevent guns falling into the hands of both criminals and irresponsible people?

For me the only responsible thing is some kind of control.
In my opinion, there should be extensive background checks, and a fairly rigorous test (like a driving test, but for guns), this should stop some criminals and some irresponsible people from buying legal guns.
I'd then like to see a law bought in that required a gun safe to be installed before a license was issued and a local LEO to inspect both the security of the house and the safe before the license was issued.

I'd then like to see the NRA and shooting clubs get involved in educating people on keeping their firearms locked up and the license holder being extremely anal about who has the key and combination for said safe.

Again we all have different opinions, but hand on my heart i honestly believe that these measure will drastically reduce the amount of deaths in the USA from guns.
Yep people will still find a way to kill each other and the knock on effect of these measures will take probably 5 years before the gains are seen, but for me as a shooter it's a very very small compromise to make for betterment of society and the safety of my kids.

[2dumb2kwit]

That's a bit like putting the chicken before the egg though.
If the criminals were not armed in the first place there would be no need to be armed to deter them.

Well, the truth of the matter is that criminals are armed. And will always be armed. Even if guns were outlawed all together, criminals would still be armed. Think about heroin, meth, etc. All illegal. All easily accessible.

I'm not posting to change any ones mind nor stir up any anti-gun discussions, as i say i do enjoy both hunting and shooting so i do have a foot in the "keep guns accessible" camp.

I do think though that it'd be a brave and rather stupid person that would deny that the USA has a massive problem with people getting shot.
Statistics and figures can be argued over and picked at till the universe ends, it's really only picking around the edges of what is obviously a MASSIVE problem.

Not really. In fact it is a relatively small problem, compared to other problems that need to be addressed long before guns. If you really want to learn something about what you are obviously confused about, maybe you should look at how many of the criminal acts that are committed with guns, are committed by repeat criminals, that should not even be out of jail.

Some believe that if more people were armed it would help.
Personally i think that would be a massive mistake for the simple reason that, some folks are not skilled or responsible to have a drivers license, other folks are not responsible enough to own animals, kids are taken into care every day of the week in every country in the world because some parents are not responsible enough to bring them up.

Pretty much all the information about this, says that the more armed a population is, in this country is, the less crime they have. Call it an inconvenient truth, if you like. By the way...if you do a little research, you will find that regular citizens make shooting "mistakes" less than police.

So it's obvious to me that some people are simply not responsible enough to own or operate a firearm in public (a range is a different matter).
It is extremely frustrating and sad that us responsible shooters would have to pay a price for these irresponsible people BUT that's the price we pay for us humans being social animals and living in a society i'm afraid.
I think there is not a person on here that doesn't know even one person that we feel would be a hazard to themselves and anyone around them if they were armed.
I'm not talking a bad person, just someone that's either irresponsible, spends most of their life intoxicated or just plain stupid.

All the available information shows that the good far out weights the bad. How much of the good are you willing to do away with? How about human rights? Do you outlaw cars, because some people get drunk and drive? Do you outlaw having children, because some parents don't do a good job of raising their kids?

We can vote towards a police state, were armed guards are posted in every public place, schools, malls, restaurants etc.
Problem there though is that:
a/ Who is controlling these armed guards, and how long will it be before they start stretching their powers?
b/ Who is judging that these armed people are qualified and experienced enough to guard the ones we love?
c/ With that many public places and schools we are talking hundreds of thousands if not millions of these armed guards, call me a pessimist but in my experiences of human nature it's a statistical foregone conclusion that some of these will be irresponsible, mentally ill, criminal or just plain stupid, so who will police and guard against the guards when inevitably some "go bad"?

Up to this point, the answer would seem to be to honor the second amendment and allow more responsible citizens to be armed. Heck....it's even free.

d/ With around 16,000 accidental shooting in the USA each year, again it's a statistical foregone conclusion that eventually ones of these guards will accidentally shoot someone, so who will police them?

I can think of only 6 people i've met in my life that i would trust to be armed around my kids.
If my kids school posted a complete stranger who was armed then as a parent what control would i have on picking who that is?
I have to say that for me personally, unless it was someone that i not only trusted my life with, but that of my kids then there is no way in hell my kids would go to a school patrolled by some armed stranger.
No way, no how.

So, you never take your kids anywhere on public roads? They are much more likely to be killed in a traffic accident, than by a gun. Do you trust every driver on the road, with your childrens lives? In fact, there are many things you should worry about way before guns. Heck, they are much more likely to drown in a swimming pool, than to be killed by a gun. (Statistically speaking, in America.)

The final nail in the coffin for me is, for a armed guard to operate it mean the S has already HTF, that's some ones kid, brother Dad, daughter, sister, mother that's not going home that night simply because the armed guard did not respond in time.

That makes no sense. I would think that your children would be the first things that you would want to be protected.

Columbine is a prime example.
Absolutely no doubt the armed guard there prevented more lives being lost, no doubt at all.
BUT kids were still murdered, and for me that puts the nail in the coffin for armed guards, surely as parents we should aim for an ideal of preventing these tragedies rather than damage limitation?

How would you do that? Banning any or all guns would not do it. People have killed many kids in schools with knives. People have killed many kids in school with explosives. All you would do by banning guns is keep them out of the hands of people who may be able to save a life with a gun.


It's tough because a shooter i want to continue my hobby, but as a parent i also want my kids to grow up without having armed guards escort them through life.
The tough part is, how do we as a society prevent guns falling into the hands of both criminals and irresponsible people?

Taking guns out of the hands of those who would do good with them, is not the answer.

For me the only responsible thing is some kind of control.
In my opinion, there should be extensive background checks, and a fairly rigorous test (like a driving test, but for guns), this should stop some criminals and some irresponsible people from buying legal guns.
I'd then like to see a law bought in that required a gun safe to be installed before a license was issued and a local LEO to inspect both the security of the house and the safe before the license was issued.

First, you are talking about taking away someones rights for an idea that has been proven not to work.
Second, trying to require someone to make it impossible for someone else to break the law and steal a gun is ridiculous. Again, all you are doing is punishing the innocent.

I'd then like to see the NRA and shooting clubs get involved in educating people on keeping their firearms locked up and the license holder being extremely anal about who has the key and combination for said safe.

What if someone can't get to a gun when they need it, because it is locked away? Again, this is a good way to get innocent people killed. Why is it, that everything that you propose punishes innocent people and does nothing to criminals?

Again we all have different opinions, but hand on my heart i honestly believe that these measure will drastically reduce the amount of deaths in the USA from guns.

Reducing the number of deaths by gun is pointless, if it doesn't reduce the total number of deaths. If people are killed by knife, rather than gun, they are just as dead. (Not to mention the rise in overall crime rate, associated with gun bans.)
Yep people will still find a way to kill each other and the knock on effect of these measures will take probably 5 years before the gains are seen, but for me as a shooter it's a very very small compromise to make for betterment of society and the safety of my kids.

Again, you are not bettering society. You are only punishing the innocent, and making them more vulnerable. I understand that you think you are going to remove a pound of bad, but you have to look at the ton of good that you are also removing. The net result is a huge loss, even if you could actually get rid of guns. (Which you can't. We have seen the proof of this, with outlawed drugs.)

It appears that you are going off of a lot of emotion, and thinking of what you wish were true, but the reality is not as you seem to see it. It may do you some good, to take a deep breath, and the do some real research. Facts will make things a little clearer.

[Geek]

That's a bit like putting the chicken before the egg though.
If the criminals were not armed in the first place there would be no need to be armed to deter them.



Okay, now I'll say it. You really are a troll.

[BENESSE]

Okay, now I'll say it. You really are a troll.

Kinda does sound like it, don't it?

[Geek]

Kinda does sound like it, don't it?

I've never called one out before, but no one else was doing it.

[2dumb2kwit]

I've never called one out before, but no one else was doing it.

We usually play with them for a while first.:burst:

[Geek]

We usually play with them for a while first.:burst:

Sorry. I didn't mean to ruin anyone's fun. :-)

[cbr6fs]

Great post 2dumb2kwit :thumbs_up:



Well, the truth of the matter is that criminals are armed. And will always be armed. Even if guns were outlawed all together, criminals would still be armed. Think about heroin, meth, etc. All illegal. All easily accessible.

I do agree that the more determined of criminals will still find a way to be armed, i just don't see why we as a society in general should make it easy for them by leaving our firearms around in a non secured environment.
I also believe there is a strong difference between firearms that have been purchased with the sole intent to inflict pain and death to another human being, to a self destructive drug addict.

Please let me make this clear again i am not in any in support of banning any firearms.
Now that is clear i will say that there is unequivocal evidence to support banning and extremely strict firearm control does make a vast difference to how easy criminals can buy guns.
The UK is a prime example, if you travelled to the UK and tried to buy a gun it would be extremely difficult unless you had very strong criminal connections, even then ammunition is severely limited as is the state and age of the gun you could buy.
Try buying something like a AR15 and it would be next to impossible even for "connected" individuals.

So although i don't condone banning or restricting firearms to that degree there is absolutely no doubt it does work in restricting criminals access to guns.

Drugs are another prime example.
History has shown that when a drug has been in short supply due to crackdowns, raids etc the price shoots up (no pun intended).
There is absolutely no logical reason to not think firearms would do the exact same thing if they were more difficult for criminals to access.

Again i agree that the determined will still be able to purchase firearms, it's just in my eyes it's better for society to have 10,000 armed criminals rather than 100,000,000 is it not?



Not really. In fact it is a relatively small problem, compared to other problems that need to be addressed long before guns. If you really want to learn something about what you are obviously confused about, maybe you should look at how many of the criminal acts that are committed with guns, are committed by repeat criminals, that should not even be out of jail.

Personally i would not call over 30,000 deaths per year by gun a "relatively small problem".

My understanding is this thread is being steered specifically towards firearms and not the justice system, so maybe we could talk about that in the different thread?

I do agree that no country is perfect and each has it's own social and criminal problems, surely there are enough resources to attack more than 1 problem at a time though?

As an example guns control could be tightened very slightly, the government and the NRA could hit educating gun owners to be more responsible as to where their weapons are secured when not in use.


Pretty much all the information about this, says that the more armed a population is, in this country is, the less crime they have. Call it an inconvenient truth, if you like. By the way...if you do a little research, you will find that regular citizens make shooting "mistakes" less than police.

I disagree.
There are countries that are armed that seem to manage very well as the topic suggests, but i don't think the USA is a particularly good example, as it has an extremely high crime and murder rate.
It also has a gut wrenchingly high number of mass murder events compared to other countries where firearms are heavily restricted.

Again i am not for heavy restriction or banning firearms and as i've said several times people will find ways to inflict death, pain and suffering on other people, i just don't see why we should make it easy for them though.


Up to this point, the answer would seem to be to honor the second amendment and allow more responsible citizens to be armed. Heck....it's even free.

Up until now i think you've given fantastic responses and although we may not agree i have enjoyed reading and responding.
For this response though i do feel that you have not addressed very major concerns directly though.
Instead you've skirted round very real worries and concerns without answering them directly.

To clarify these were my points

We can vote towards a police state, were armed guards are posted in every public place, schools, malls, restaurants etc.
Problem there though is that:
a/ Who is controlling these armed guards, and how long will it be before they start stretching their powers?
b/ Who is judging that these armed people are qualified and experienced enough to guard the ones we love?
c/ With that many public places and schools we are talking hundreds of thousands if not millions of these armed guards, call me a pessimist but in my experiences of human nature it's a statistical foregone conclusion that some of these will be irresponsible, mentally ill, criminal or just plain stupid, so who will police and guard against the guards when inevitably some "go bad"?


So, you never take your kids anywhere on public roads? They are much more likely to be killed in a traffic accident, than by a gun. Do you trust every driver on the road, with your childrens lives? In fact, there are many things you should worry about way before guns. Heck, they are much more likely to drown in a swimming pool, than to be killed by a gun. (Statistically speaking, in America.)

Again, i'm sorry but i find this response extremely disappointing, in that we are not discussing road safety or drowning we are specifically discussing guns and responsible gun ownership.

There is also a vast vast difference between someone having a split second of poor judgement that ends in a death, to someone going out with the specific intention to kill and maim, as the courts and justice system make perfectly clear.

Personally i would not send my kids to a school where there were armed guards.
Just like i do not trust my kids lives to some drivers, i do not trust my kids lives to some unknown person carrying a gun.


That makes no sense. I would think that your children would be the first things that you would want to be protected.

If armed guards were posted at your kids school and your kid was the first to get shot before the armed guard could react, does it really matter if there was a armed guard or not in that specific instance, he may have saved some lives but still your kid is not coming home that night.


How would you do that? Banning any or all guns would not do it. People have killed many kids in schools with knives. People have killed many kids in school with explosives. All you would do by banning guns is keep them out of the hands of people who may be able to save a life with a gun.

So lets say that a mad man walks into your place of work tomorrow with intention of mass murder, you have 2 choices.
1/ He will be armed with a AR15 and several mags
2/ He has a knife

I know which of the 2 evils i would choose, i rate my chances of survival against a knife i don't against a gun.

Again people will always find a way of killing each other, but as i keep saying, why the hell should we make it so easy for them?

Look at Adam Lanza, in a fist fight i'd rate most 8 year old kids up against a weasely scrawny kid like that, if he went to the school with a knife not only would he had not been able to gain entry, he'd have been put down with a right hook from most inside the school.

Yet again i'm not for banning anything BUT if his Mum had secured her weapons and he had not known the safes combination 27 would have gone home that night.



Taking guns out of the hands of those who would do good with them, is not the answer.

At what percentage of bad people doing bad with guns does it become the answer though, 25%, 50% 75%?

Again i'm not looking or suggesting taking anything out the hands of anyone, i'm suggesting keeping them locked up tight when not in use and having stricter control on the mental health, responsibility, competency and criminal history of those that can have them legally.


First, you are talking about taking away someones rights for an idea that has been proven not to work.
Second, trying to require someone to make it impossible for someone else to break the law and steal a gun is ridiculous. Again, all you are doing is punishing the innocent.

But for a person to drive a car they need PROVE competency and responsibility before they're allowed on public roads, no one is screaming about rights violations there though.
Even things like getting a dog from a shelter will have a background check, again no one is screaming rights violation there.

So why should firearms be any different?
It's just plain common sense to me that a person should have a criminal, mental health background check, prove competency in the use of a firearm (which most gun shops provide basic training free already) and be shown to be responsible enough to have a safe to secure the weapons when not in use.

I think that one persons slant on innocent is different to another.
If some one leaves a firearm hanging around with absolutely no care, if that gun is then stolen and used to end some ones life or injure then to me that irresponsible gun owner has to take some responsibility for the damage their gun has caused.

Likewise if i let my next door neighbours kid drive my car and they crashed killing someone i have to accept that i'm in part responsible.

[cbr6fs]

What if someone can't get to a gun when they need it, because it is locked away? Again, this is a good way to get innocent people killed. Why is it, that everything that you propose punishes innocent people and does nothing to criminals?

Millions upon millions of people around the world are able to protect and secure their home and family without firearms.
Plus if they were locked away fewer and fewer criminals would have access to them, so win win.

But in the interest of friendliness, please look at this video.


http://youtu.be/CGbI-LNPRHY?t=32s

I'd suggest that it would be quicker to access a gun from that type of safe than it would be to rummage through a drawer or cupboard to find your handgun.


Reducing the number of deaths by gun is pointless,
Unless it's your loved ones that have been shot of course.


if it doesn't reduce the total number of deaths. If people are killed by knife, rather than gun, they are just as dead. (Not to mention the rise in overall crime rate, associated with gun bans.)

Of course it will reduce the number of deaths.
I've been shot at and i've had a knife pulled on me, i can tell you from first hand experience that i would sooner take on 10 assailants armed with knives than one scrawny kid with a gun.

That's not including the survival rates from knife attacks as opposed to gun attacks.

AGAIN I'M NOT SUGGESTING BANNING ANY GUNS.



Again, you are not bettering society. You are only punishing the innocent, and making them more vulnerable. I understand that you think you are going to remove a pound of bad, but you have to look at the ton of good that you are also removing. The net result is a huge loss, even if you could actually get rid of guns. (Which you can't. We have seen the proof of this, with outlawed drugs.)

It appears that you are going off of a lot of emotion, and thinking of what you wish were true, but the reality is not as you seem to see it. It may do you some good, to take a deep breath, and the do some real research. Facts will make things a little clearer.

You have a very slanted view on things.
If less innocent people are being murdered then how is that punishing them?

Again i'm not suggesting banning guns BUT in 2008 there were 680 deaths from accidental shootings and 15,500 serious injuries.
Each day in the US there are 5 kids that are accidentally shot, resulting in either serious injury or death.

Seems like a pretty good reason to keep your guns locked up to me.



Okay, now I'll say it. You really are a troll.


Could you please explain what a troll is?

If it's derogatory term then i think you are being extremely unfair.

I have an opinion that i have put forward in a courteous and friendly manor as i know how, i've not insulted nor derided anyone or any ones opinions.

As i understood it we are adults here sharing opinions and ideas in a adult and courteous fashion.

I've tried to make my points as clear and concise as i can and have tried to stay on topic as much as i can which is tough on such a complex problem.
I have not baited anyone nor made any snide comments and i feel every post i've made has been to either answer others or to further the discussion unlike your comment above, which has offered absolutely no content or usefulness to the thread.

[Geek]

Fair question. It is a derogatory term, and I agree you have been courteous, though foolish.

These are my own words but perhaps someone else can provide you with a real "definition". Basically a troll, in this context, is someone who joins and online forum and before really establishing himself as part of the group, as someone who listens as well as contributes, makes some argumentative statements just to stir things up causing a bunch of dissention and then ultimately disappears and participates no more, once he gets the argument and/or insults he was seeking.

We get them here on this forum with some regularity. Usually someone comes on, doesn't introduce himself, and tosses out some controversial first post about the end of the world, or how no one here is serious about prepping, or some other nonsense.

While you are courteous on the surface, the chicken and egg nonsense about criminals and guns is just plain dumb. We have armed criminals here. That is just reality. No change in the law is going to alter that. You can accept it or you can ignore it. If you accept it, then rational discussion can continue. When you reject it with that chicken and egg nonsense, you're a troll.

Honestly, I have not even looked to see if you have put up an introductory post about who you are, but if you want to try again I suggest you first make an introductory post if you haven't already. It would probably be good to ask a few questions and listen to the answers you get. I think we would all appreciate perspective from another country and culture, but you will find that among US based participants firearms will be viewed as necessary tools.

In my own case, I am a member of the Sons of the American Revolution. Our revolution started with the battles of Lexington and Concord. I had relatives in those battles. The British goal in those battles was to sieze the weapons they thought were stored in Concord. In this country attempting to restrict civilian access to arms has been associated with the worst form of tyranny ever since.

Unfortunately, some of our citizens today have forgotten our history. You are from another country, so I don't expect you to necessarily know our history, but as far as many of us are concerned the posters that started this thread pretty much reflect the position of anyone who isn't an idiot, or a troll. You don't have to agree, but if you want to argue a different perspective you better come up with something more thought provoking than that chicken and egg nonsense. It's insulting, and sufficient to earn you the troll label.

BTW: We're all familiar with gun safes and anyone who wants one has one.

[2dumb2kwit]

Great post 2dumb2kwit :thumbs_up:



I do agree that the more determined of criminals will still find a way to be armed, i just don't see why we as a society in general should make it easy for them by leaving our firearms around in a non secured environment.
I also believe there is a strong difference between firearms that have been purchased with the sole intent to inflict pain and death to another human being, to a self destructive drug addict.

You are missing the point. The point is that even though heroin, meth, etc., are outlawed, they are easily accessible.... just as guns would still be easily had, even if completely banned..

Please let me make this clear again i am not in any in support of banning any firearms.
Now that is clear i will say that there is unequivocal evidence to support banning and extremely strict firearm control does make a vast difference to how easy criminals can buy guns.
The UK is a prime example, if you travelled to the UK and tried to buy a gun it would be extremely difficult unless you had very strong criminal connections, even then ammunition is severely limited as is the state and age of the gun you could buy.
Try buying something like a AR15 and it would be next to impossible even for "connected" individuals.

So? Travel to Mexico and let me know how many AK's are in the hands of criminals. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. We are talking about the U.S.

So although i don't condone banning or restricting firearms to that degree there is absolutely no doubt it does work in restricting criminals access to guns.

Not true.

Drugs are another prime example.
History has shown that when a drug has been in short supply due to crackdowns, raids etc the price shoots up (no pun intended).
There is absolutely no logical reason to not think firearms would do the exact same thing if they were more difficult for criminals to access.

Yet, anywhere you go, criminals have drugs. Get it?

Again i agree that the determined will still be able to purchase firearms, it's just in my eyes it's better for society to have 10,000 armed criminals rather than 100,000,000 is it not?

You have proposed nothing to make that happen. Is it going to be magic?



Personally i would not call over 30,000 deaths per year by gun a "relatively small problem".

Where did you get that number? What all does it include? Again, lets compare apples to apples. If you are talking accidental death by firearm, we will compare that to other accidental deaths and see how significant a problem it is. Are you talking about suicides? I would argue that if someone wants to kill themselves, a gun is not the reason why. Are you talking about intentional killings with guns? That number is around 8,500. That is a small number, compared to the 1 to 3 million times per years that guns are used defensively. Heck, even you number of 30,00 would be small compared to millions of good uses. Would it not? By the way, here is where I get my numbers. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

My understanding is this thread is being steered specifically towards firearms and not the justice system, so maybe we could talk about that in the different thread?

I just brought that up because guns don't actually do things on there own. I though it important to think about who was doing bad things with them.

I do agree that no country is perfect and each has it's own social and criminal problems, surely there are enough resources to attack more than 1 problem at a time though?

True, but why start with a statistically tiny problem, and take away peoples God given rights and not even help the problem?

As an example guns control could be tightened very slightly, the government and the NRA could hit educating gun owners to be more responsible as to where their weapons are secured when not in use.





Again i am not for heavy restriction or banning firearms and as i've said several times people will find ways to inflict death, pain and suffering on other people, i just don't see why we should make it easy for them though.





To clarify these were my points




Again, i'm sorry but i find this response extremely disappointing, in that we are not discussing road safety or drowning we are specifically discussing guns and responsible gun ownership.

Do you not understand that every other car on the road is like a person with a gun? You are trusting every driver out there, to not screw up and kill you. It happens far more often than guns killing.

There is also a vast vast difference between someone having a split second of poor judgement that ends in a death, to someone going out with the specific intention to kill and maim, as the courts and justice system make perfectly clear.

That is true....whether it is with a car, a gun or a can of gasoline. But dead is still dead. And what does this have to do with our debate?

Personally i would not send my kids to a school where there were armed guards.
Just like i do not trust my kids lives to some drivers, i do not trust my kids lives to some unknown person carrying a gun.

You trust them to unknown drivers, every time you take them out on the road.



If armed guards were posted at your kids school and your kid was the first to get shot before the armed guard could react, does it really matter if there was a armed guard or not in that specific instance, he may have saved some lives but still your kid is not coming home that night.

Tell that to the parents of the kids who did come home because there was an armed guard there.



So lets say that a mad man walks into your place of work tomorrow with intention of mass murder, you have 2 choices.
1/ He will be armed with a AR15 and several mags
2/ He has a knife

I know which of the 2 evils i would choose, i rate my chances of survival against a knife i don't against a gun.

Pointless. If a madman came into your home with a revolver, would you rather have a knife, or an AR-15 to protect your family?

Again people will always find a way of killing each other, but as i keep saying, why the hell should we make it so easy for them?

What have you proposed, that will help? All I have seen you talk about are things that make it harder for honest people to defend their families or themselves.

Look at Adam Lanza, in a fist fight i'd rate most 8 year old kids up against a weasely scrawny kid like that, if he went to the school with a knife not only would he had not been able to gain entry, he'd have been put down with a right hook from most inside the school.

Again, what do you propose to keep people like him from getting a gun? Or gas and fertilizer, to make a bomb that could have killed many more, for that matter.

Yet again i'm not for banning anything BUT if his Mum had secured her weapons and he had not known the safes combination 27 would have gone home that night.

That is an asinine argument. What's to say that his crazy arse wouldn't have used moms car and a can of gas, to take out a bus full of kids? I could easily use the argument that if an armed guard had been at the door, he could have shot that nut, and all of those kids would have gone home safely.




At what percentage of bad people doing bad with guns does it become the answer though, 25%, 50% 75%?

Again i'm not looking or suggesting taking anything out the hands of anyone, i'm suggesting keeping them locked up tight when not in use and having stricter control on the mental health, responsibility, competency and criminal history of those that can have them legally.

We already have laws about those things. What else are you proposing?



But for a person to drive a car they need PROVE competency and responsibility before they're allowed on public roads, no one is screaming about rights violations there though.
Even things like getting a dog from a shelter will have a background check, again no one is screaming rights violation there.

So why should firearms be any different?
It's just plain common sense to me that a person should have a criminal, mental health background check, prove competency in the use of a firearm (which most gun shops provide basic training free already) and be shown to be responsible enough to have a safe to secure the weapons when not in use.

Tell me, other than being a pain itn the butt for legal gun owners, what good would these things do? Give me some numbers, or something. Explain how the good outweighs the bad.

I think that one persons slant on innocent is different to another.
If some one leaves a firearm hanging around with absolutely no care, if that gun is then stolen and used to end some ones life or injure then to me that irresponsible gun owner has to take some responsibility for the damage their gun has caused.

How many deaths are due to legal gun owners not being reasonably responsible? At what point do you think a gun owner is being responsible? How secure is secure enough?

Likewise if i let my next door neighbours kid drive my car and they crashed killing someone i have to accept that i'm in part responsible.

Should we keep our cars in locked vaults, so no-one can steal them and run over somebody?

[Warheit]

Not even comparable situations. Bad article.

[Geek]

I am not aware of any data that suggests that the problem here in the US is people failing to secure their guns and having them stolen or misused as a result. Is anyone aware of any such statistics? I've never had one stolen or misused.

[Wildthang]

Guns get stolen, cars get stolen, and even children get stolen, and more kids die in car wrecks due to their parents not making them wear seat belts, than are shot on purpose or accidentally.
Knives probably kill and hurt as many people as guns, so stuff happens!
We have the right to own guns, and until they ban cars, knives, trains, drugs, crazy people, bad doctors, hurricanes, tornadoes, alcohol, dead tree limbs, the flue, cancer, and all of the millions of things that can cause people to die, we are keeping our guns!

[Geek]

Guns get stolen, cars get stolen, and even children get stolen, and more kids die in car wrecks due to their parents not making them wear seat belts, than are shot on purpose or accidentally.
Knives probably kill and hurt as many people as guns, so stuff happens!
We have the right to own guns, and until they ban cars, knives, trains, drugs, crazy people, bad doctors, hurricanes, tornadoes, alcohol, dead tree limbs, the flue, cancer, and all of the millions of things that can cause people to die, we are keeping our guns!

I don't disagree. I thought if there actually were statistics they would tend to refute the idea that the problem is unsecured firearms, but absent any data I don't think you can make a statement that it is or is not a problem.

[Winter]

Unsecured criminals cause crime. Yet, we let them out of jail every day.

[Geek]

Unsecured criminals cause crime. Yet, we let them out of jail every day.

That and kids are the only reasons I can think of for needing to lock up firearms. :-)

[Winter]

I have knives on every flat surface. I have guns in various places throughout the house.

My kids rage from 14 to 20 and were all taught about both tools from birth. I have nothing to worry about.

None of my kids has ever even had stitches. So, I see no reason to lock up my guns while family is here.

My 14yo son has his rifles and ammo in his own room.

[Geek]

Every child should learn to swim, ride a bicycle, handle a firearm safely, etc.

[Wildthang]

Most normal level headed kids do quite well around guns when they are trained and informed by their parents. After they learn to shoot, it seems to take the mystery for them out of the picture and they just don't bother guns in the house.
But the problem is that some parents cannot see that their child is not normal and level headed, and therin lies the danger. I know a lady who has a son with apparent aspergers syndrom, and she argues with her family that he is perfectly normal, and basically chooses to ignore the symptoms. I think she has a gun or two around the house but I really dont know if she keeps them secure or not, but I know she doesn't have a gun safe.
I tend to think that a lot of parents are blind to their kids mental health problems and that is a huge problem, and how is the government going to deal with that?

[BENESSE]

Parents are usually the first ones to be in denial about their kids. And you can't change that which you don't acknowledge. Plain and simple.