[QUOTE=catbarf;51102175] Actually, if you exclude the biggest cities in the US from your consideration, our crime rate is downright European in spite of an enormous number of guns.[/quote]
It would certainly help if certain cities werent actual fucking warzones.
Looking at you, Detroit.
[QUOTE=Luni;51097843]This kind of thing does happen but it's pretty rare in most places. Where will you end up?[/QUOTE]
Late reply, but California. I'm not really for or against guns - I've handled quite a few in my time, but the U.S. is different to Australia and I think it's important that I respect those differences. The gun control that works in Australia will probably not work in the U.S., one size does not fit all when it comes to national policy.
This news has had the effect of making a lot of my family scared for my safety though. :v:
[QUOTE=DogGunn;51101318]Whatever. Enjoy your gun right utopia.
Rest of the world says let us know when you catch up.[/QUOTE]
Seriously can you not.
I'm from a country where gun rights are next to nothing and even I can see that the issue isn't as black and white as morons like you would insinuate. If you want to blame anything blame the US' society and cultural attitudes which foster an environment that creates criminals and shits all over the low income working class.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51099327]I get the sneaking suspicion gangs likely dont abide by gun control laws.[/QUOTE]
illegally owned guns are often stolen from legal gun owners
take steps to reduce the amount of firearms in the public sphere in the united states, reduce gun crime
it's that simple. no blame on legal gun owners, just simple fact.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;51103005]illegally owned guns are often stolen from legal gun owners
take steps to reduce the amount of firearms in the public sphere in the united states, reduce gun crime
it's that simple. no blame on legal gun owners, just simple fact.[/QUOTE]
Obviously if we could fly a giant electro magnet over the US and capture wvery single gun, then obviously gun crime would go down. Would crime go down as a whole? Nope. Gun violence is a consequence of a larger issue. You dont cure a disease by treating the symptoms.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;51103005]illegally owned guns are often stolen from legal gun owners
take steps to reduce the amount of firearms in the public sphere in the united states, reduce gun crime
it's that simple. no blame on legal gun owners, just simple fact.[/QUOTE]
I did a little bit of research on this when writing my essay on gun control, and found that only a tiny minority (a few percentage points) of firearms are procured through theft. The same goes for private sale, gun shows, and most of the other scapegoats. I can go find the relevant sources if you don't want to take my word for it.
Most guns used in crime actually come from friends and family, straw purchase (this is the #1), or unscrupulous sellers. Considering the Department of Justice almost always declines to prosecute straw purchase, I think it's clear that our efforts are focused on the wrong things. If you want to take steps to reduce the amount of firearms in illegal circulation, reducing legal ownership is an indirect and frankly counterproductive approach. Pressuring the DoJ to allocate resources for the prosecution of the currently punishment-free crime of straw purchase would directly address an enormous source of illegal guns without stepping on the toes of legitimate owners.
But this isn't something that gun control advocates talk about, for whatever reason. I try to avoid partisanship on issues that IMO should be solved through practical, statistically-supported means, but looking at the behavior of gun control advocates it's very hard not to get the sense that they're more interested in pushing their ideology than addressing the statistically relevant sources of gun crime.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51103472]Obviously if we could fly a giant electro magnet over the US and capture wvery single gun, then obviously gun crime would go down. Would crime go down as a whole? Nope. Gun violence is a consequence of a larger issue. You dont cure a disease by treating the symptoms.[/QUOTE]
Crime wouldn't, but crime-related-deaths would.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51102175]So... Switzerland? Seems working fine to me.[/QUOTE]
gun control is much stricter in switzerland than you actually think
[editline]25th September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51101776]Europe was way bigger on guns than the US ever was until those governments began taking steps to squash "gun culture".=[/QUOTE]
except they weren't? none of the europeans have had a gun culture. gun control legislation exists as far back as the medieval period and overlaps with other weaponry as well. throughout europe you don't really find anybody who treats guns the way that the vocal minority of americans do
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51103997]gun control is much stricter in switzerland than you actually think[/QUOTE]
Do tell.
I know, for example, that conscripts are required to keep their weapons in their homes, and while allocated 'emergency' ammunition must be accounted for (prior to 2007, when ammunition was no longer issued), they are permitted to buy ammunition at-cost from the government and practice on their own dime if they so desire. Since 1994, after their term of service, Swiss militiamen are permitted to keep their assault rifles for personal use. Every time the Swiss government adopts a new rifle, they auction the old ones off to the citizens. Handguns and long arms alike are freely available to any adult who is not considered mentally defective or an ex-convict, and a public carry permit only requires certifying a reason to carry and completing a basic safety course.
Despite the prevalent access of fully-automatic assault rifles and gun laws that are in many ways far more lax than the US, the country has an incredibly low homicide rate.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51103997]except they weren't? none of the europeans have had a gun culture.[/QUOTE]
The wording of the 2nd Amendment in the US is in large part based on William Blackstone's comments on British gun ownership for the defense of the English people. In England, one of the most historically restrictive countries, you could carry a firearm without a permit until 1870, purchase a firearm freely and without any check or permit until 1920, and buy a firearm specifically for self-defense until 1937. It was only in the post-WW2 context that firearm ownership became greatly restricted rather than simply regulated.
In fact, it was at the London Olympic games in 1908 that pistol dueling was featured as an associate (non-medal-winning) event.
And hey, for a contemporary view, let's look at Switzerland again, where in 1978 the government refused to ratify a EU proposal on gun control due to overwhelming opposition from the public. In 2012, over 130,000 Swiss shooters attended a government-sponsored rifle shooting event- the largest of its kind in the world. Please, try to argue that Switzerland, where owning weapons is seen as a sign of citizenship (following the 1291 establishment of landsgemeinden, in which only sword-owning men could vote), doesn't have a gun culture.
The idea that Europe 'never had a gun culture' is revisionist nonsense.
"Guns have always been illegal in Oceania" isn't a real argument, Sobotnik. Europe had a very strong and very vibrant "gun culture" - I personally own several antique European civilian arms which demonstrate masterful gunsmithing that would have cost quite a bit. It's just that European nations had nothing in place to protect them from being banned or regulated out of existence... unlike the United States which was founded by Europeans who appreciated firearms and wanted to make sure they'd always be around.
Europe had a massive gun culture prior to WW1. Basically every country was tripping over themselves to get a Maxim gun in the early 1900's because there was a distinct love of guns and war.
[QUOTE=catbarf;51104284]I know, for example, that conscripts are required to keep their weapons in their homes, and while allocated 'emergency' ammunition must be accounted for (prior to 2007, when ammunition was no longer issued), they are permitted to buy ammunition at-cost from the government and practice on their own dime if they so desire. Since 1994, after their term of service, Swiss militiamen are permitted to keep their assault rifles for personal use. Every time the Swiss government adopts a new rifle, they auction the old ones off to the citizens. Handguns and long arms alike are freely available to any adult who is not considered mentally defective or an ex-convict, and a public carry permit only requires certifying a reason to carry and completing a basic safety course..
Despite the prevalent access of fully-automatic assault rifles and gun laws that are in many ways far more lax than the US, the country has an incredibly low homicide rate.[/quote]
Well for starters, you have to have a weapon acquisition permit in order to own a gun. Additionally you can only buy ammo for guns which you are legally certified as actually owning in the first place. There's additional paperwork for whenever you transfer a guns or a critical component of it, and a considerable amount of information must be supplied to the local gun registry whenever this happens.
Open carry in Switzerland is extremely limited, and it's only really issued in [b]exceptional circumstances[/b] (such as for security guards) Soldiers who travel about Switzerland with their rifles do so with unloaded guns. Additionally in order to carry guns around the country you need to specify a purpose and reason for doing so. Heavy machine guns and automatics in general are also banned or strictly prohibited.
Many of these regulations would be decried in America by the vocal minority from what I've seen.
[quote]The wording of the 2nd Amendment in the US is in large part based on William Blackstone's comments on British gun ownership for the defense of the English people. In England, one of the most historically restrictive countries, you could carry a firearm without a permit until 1870, purchase a firearm freely and without any check or permit until 1920, and buy a firearm specifically for self-defense until 1937. It was only in the post-WW2 context that firearm ownership became greatly restricted rather than simply regulated.[/QUOTE]
Except while the laws were nonexistent early on, you never really had that same culture that America has. It's a fallacy for a modern American to project a view that American-style gun culture held true in early modern Britain before gun legislation. While people could certainly buy guns, it was nowhere near the scale as in the modern United States.
[quote]Please, try to argue that Switzerland, where owning weapons is seen as a sign of citizenship (following the 1291 establishment of landsgemeinden, in which only sword-owning men could vote), doesn't have a gun culture.[/quote]
The difference between Switzerland and the United States is massive. [b]Swiss people are primarily collective in their reasons for owning and using guns rather than an individualist one[/b] - and the state actively promotes this for the purpose of national defence.
An American will say "I have a gun to protect myself and my family". A Swiss man will say "I have a gun to serve my nation". That is the important difference. If you actually shoot somebody who breaks into your home in Switzerland you will get into deep legal shit, and a lot of people don't even keep ammunition at home.
[b]Comparing Switzerland to America is like comparing apples and bananas.[/b]
Except you absolutely could go down to the local gunsmith's shop in 1850 in London and buy a gun no questions asked and carry it around with you. That's actually [I]more[/I] open than "American gun culture". I do not understand what you think "American gun culture" entails.
There was considerable resistance to encroaching laws but unlike the US, England (and other European countries) did not have protections set in stone in its core principles, which meant they just had to grin and bear it and over time new generations were apathetic because it wasn't something that affected them -- or outright negative to the concept since their only experience with firearms will have been a criminal breaking the law with one due to how difficult it is to own one legally.
Whereas in the US a good chunk of our population has grown up around them in a safe environment and views them positively -- rather like most Europeans back when they were legal -- and certainly, many Europeans even today.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51104521]Except you absolutely could go down to the local gunsmith's shop in 1850 in London and buy a gun no questions asked and carry it around with you. That's actually [I]more[/I] open than "American gun culture". I do not understand what you think "American gun culture" entails.[/QUOTE]
Except 1850s London is completely fucking different to America in the 2010s. It wasn't even like 1850s except in only the most superficial sense. Most people in 19th century Britain didn't even own a gun.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51104570]Except 1850s London is completely fucking different to America in the 2010s. It wasn't even like 1850s except in only the most superficial sense. Most people in 19th century Britain didn't even own a gun.[/QUOTE]
So fucking what? We are speaking within a limited scope. Obviously 1850s London is different than 2010s US. You think I don't know that?
You are saying there was "never" any kind of "gun culture" in Europe and I am saying that there was. Most people in 19th century Britain couldn't own pineapples, let alone guns - they were not affordable. That does not mean that it couldn't be done and that people didn't do it.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51104704]So fucking what? We are speaking within a limited scope. Obviously 1850s London is different than 2010s US. You think I don't know that?
You are saying there was "never" any kind of "gun culture" in Europe and I am saying that there was. Most people in 19th century Britain couldn't own pineapples, let alone guns - they were not affordable. That does not mean that it couldn't be done and that people didn't do it.[/QUOTE]
The point is that the gun culture you think of didn't exist. I don't get the purpose of trying to convince people that a gun culture comparable to that in the United States existed. Completely different people owned completely different guns for completely different reasons in a country with a society different to that of the modern USA.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51104497]Well for starters, you have to have a weapon acquisition permit in order to own a gun. Additionally you can only buy ammo for guns which you are legally certified as actually owning in the first place. There's additional paperwork for whenever you transfer a guns or a critical component of it, and a considerable amount of information must be supplied to the local gun registry whenever this happens.
Open carry in Switzerland is extremely limited, and it's only really issued in [B]exceptional circumstances[/B] (such as for security guards) Soldiers who travel about Switzerland with their rifles do so with unloaded guns. Additionally in order to carry guns around the country you need to specify a purpose and reason for doing so. Heavy machine guns and automatics in general are also banned or strictly prohibited.
Many of these regulations would be decried in America by the vocal minority from what I've seen.[/QUOTE]
Do you have a point here? Because the fact remains that fully-automatic assault rifles are kept in a large number of Swiss homes, and the people who own them have ready access to cheap ammunition [I]supplied by their own government[/I] to practice with.
Lemme just back up a little to show why you're bloviating without purpose. Axel said 'If say a European country suddenly made firearms legal and available in large quantities, it would certainly end badly'. I responded with the example of Switzerland. You made the drive-by statement that Switzerland has much stricter gun control than I think- and when pressed on it, didn't contradict a single claim I made about Swiss gun laws. The fact is that there is a European country that made firearms legal and available in large quantities and it's gone pretty well for them. Your 'actually they do have some restrictions' objection is irrelevant trivia.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51104497]Except while the laws were nonexistent early on, you never really had that same culture that America has. It's a fallacy for a modern American to project a view that American-style gun culture held true in early modern Britain before gun legislation. While people could certainly buy guns, it was nowhere near the scale as in the modern United States.
The difference between Switzerland and the United States is massive. [B]Swiss people are primarily collective in their reasons for owning and using guns rather than an individualist one[/B] - and the state actively promotes this for the purpose of national defence.
An American will say "I have a gun to protect myself and my family". A Swiss man will say "I have a gun to serve my nation". That is the important difference. If you actually shoot somebody who breaks into your home in Switzerland you will get into deep legal shit, and a lot of people don't even keep ammunition at home.
[B]Comparing Switzerland to America is like comparing apples and bananas.[/B][/QUOTE]
'none of the europeans have had a gun culture'
'How about British gun culture? Or Swiss gun culture?'
'well they're different from the US's so it's not the same'
You're moving goalposts at lightning speed. Switzerland has an active gun culture. You said 'none of the europeans have had a gun culture' and when there is currently a European country with an active gun culture you are demonstrably, ridiculously false.
I don't really care about whether they're exactly the same as American gun culture, that's irrelevant. The fact is that Switzerland has an active culture focused around gun ownership and collection, an enormous number of guns per capita in private circulation, vocal public opposition to gun control imposed by the rest of the EU, and a low homicide rate in spite of it all. Whether their gun culture is philosophically oriented around common defense or individual freedom means fuck-all: they have assault rifles everywhere and a low homicide rate, which is the extent of Switzerland's relevance to the conversation.
Just a quick clarification, Switzerland is not in the EU. That's why they could reject gun control from the EU - because as far as I'm aware their deals mean they don't have to enforce any laws the EU brings down.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51104760]The point is that the gun culture you think of didn't exist. I don't get the purpose of trying to convince people that a gun culture comparable to that in the United States existed. Completely different people owned completely different guns for completely different reasons in a country with a society different to that of the modern USA.[/QUOTE]
What do you think "American gun culture" is? You refuse to elaborate on this. What is the principle difference between "American gun culture" and 1850s British gun culture or 2010s Swiss gun culture insofar as it applies to availability and crime rates?
What is it about America specifically that makes guns [I]cause[/I] crime when they enter this country as opposed to simply being a detail elsewhere?
Either you cannot answer these questions or you can but don't want to because you know as well as I do that the answer will deconstruct your argument.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51104570]Except 1850s London is completely fucking different to America in the 2010s. It wasn't even like 1850s except in only the most superficial sense. Most people in 19th century Britain didn't even own a gun.[/QUOTE]
Not only that, but Victorian Britain (and the whole world of that era, for that matter) was a far less regulated place. Lack of regulation does not imply the existence of a certain culture around that lack of regulation.
During my stay in the U.S. I actually felt pretty safe and never actually felt threatened or that I would be shot, though my fiancee roasted me for adventuring by myself in "bad suburbs" while she was at work so in having said that I understand the dangers and accept them that come with the liberty of gun ownership.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;51104912]What do you think "American gun culture" is? You refuse to elaborate on this. What is the principle difference between "American gun culture" and 1850s British gun culture or 2010s Swiss gun culture insofar as it applies to availability and crime rates?
What is it about America specifically that makes guns [I]cause[/I] crime when they enter this country as opposed to simply being a detail elsewhere?
Either you cannot answer these questions or you can but don't want to because you know as well as I do that the answer will deconstruct your argument.[/QUOTE]
I'll play his advocate and say that Switzerland is not as big as the US and it doesn't have the same kind of problems with racial tensions between blacks and cops, horrible healthcare which pretty much sees any mentally ill like the spawn of Satan, etc.
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;51110767]I'll play his advocate and say that Switzerland is not as big as the US and it doesn't have the same kind of problems with racial tensions between blacks and cops, horrible healthcare which pretty much sees any mentally ill like the spawn of Satan, etc.[/QUOTE]
Right, but because of these things exist in the US, gun violence and violence in general is the direct result. Banning guns wont make those issues suddenly disappear.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51111842]Right, but because of these things exist in the US, gun violence and violence in general is the direct result. Banning guns wont make those issues suddenly disappear.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. As we have seen in communities where firearms are banned, due to these issues, the violence continues, but is inflicted with either illegal firearms (leaving the law-abiding fewer defensive options, while also depriving them of access to an innocent hobby and also potentially destroying historic items), knives, or improvised weapons like chains, bats, bricks... many of which inflict worse injuries than the average criminally-circulated firearm.
Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if this is probably more a gang issue than a gun issue. If they didn't have guns they probably would have just stabbed him instead.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51104760]The point is that the gun culture you think of didn't exist. I don't get the purpose of trying to convince people that a gun culture comparable to that in the United States existed. Completely different people owned completely different guns for completely different reasons in a country with a society different to that of the modern USA.[/QUOTE]
Sobotnik, the reason why the 2nd Amendment exists is because it was a carry over from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Which codified into law that all English citizens have the right to arms.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689#Provisions_of_the_Act[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Influence_of_the_English_Bill_of_Rights_of_1689[/url]
[quote="English Bill of Rights"]Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) ... by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... [b]That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.[/b][/quote]
Obviously, there was some context to the English Bill of Rights. However, the framers of the US Constitution had experience with England trying to strip their arms away. Along with other rights that were in the English Bill of Rights. Obviously, for the founders of this country when their government came to strip their guns away that is when the revolution started.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord[/url]
These were ideals that they came to this land with when they migrated from England. The "gun culture" didn't spawn out of no where, and it really isn't unique to America. The only reason it comes up like it does is because the news loves sensational headlines. And what better headlines than those that can instill fear into someone. Because those sell best since people are very much interested in survival. So tell them the world is on fire, tell people that there are murders going every which way, that they'll likely be dead from a murder instead of the truth that the overwhelming truth is that they will likely die due to some other cause, which in most cases is disease (cancer, heart issues, etc).
People fear monger over firearms when they are not a major cause of death in this country. The major reason firearms come up is because someone is scared of them. They make a loud noise and people watch too much Hollywood to not understand firearms or their functioning.
Democide is a major cause of unnatural death in this world.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide[/url]
It's not unique to the 20th century. Governments have long wanted to kill those that oppose them. This is seen all throughout human history. Because it is a whole lot easier to wipe a group of people out than to convince them to come to your side. The natives of lands, America and Australia included, experienced this all the way through the 20th century.
Switzerland's gun culture is the way it is because its a land locked nation in which many other conquerors wanted to take over throughout history. Especially when a lot of valuables were stored their (Swiss banking). There is a reason Hitler didn't invade Switzerland during his conquest of Europe like he did to the majority of other European countries. Do you know why? Its because he'd have to fight the entire able-bodied male population of the country. Militias can be effective, mainly through weight of numbers. Hitler definitely wanted to invade and take over Switzerland. But he held off because it wouldn't be militarily feasible as it was with other European countries.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenbaum[/url]
[url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/halbrook.html[/url]
[quote]The 1940 Nazi invasion plan, Operation Tannenbaum, was not executed, and SS Oberst Hermann Bohme's 1943 memorandum warned that an [b]invasion of Switzerland would be too costly because every man was armed and trained to shoot[/b]. This did not stop the Gestapo from preparing lists of Swiss to be liquidated once the Nazis overran the country.
[b]The other European nations were easily toppled and had little means to wage a partisan war against the occupation. Once their standing armies were defeated, the governments capitulated and the populaces were defenseless.[/b][/quote]
He probably could have taken Switzerland, but the cost would have been too high. That is what a armed populace does to the calculations of military planners who have to plan such invasions. They took over the majority of Europe, but feared a small country that was right on their border.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
