Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=butre;53132870]you do realize I'm talking about specific incidences right?[/QUOTE] Yeah, you are. But you're using those incidents as proof that "shootings happen everywhere" - as if it was fucking comparable between ie. Sweden's [I]30 [/I]firearm-related incidents mostly tied between criminal-to-criminal, and the US's[I] 33,000[/I]. Sure, your population is larger, but that's still a many times higher amount per 100,000. Like I said, I can't answer for Mexico, Brazil or China - I'm just debunking [I]that [/I]ridiculous anecdote.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53132850]I can't answer for Mexico and Brazil, but bringing up Sweden is a monumentally dumb thing to do when it comes to shootings. Take a gander at our[URL="https://www.bra.se/brott-och-statistik/statistik-utifran-brottstyper/mord-och-drap.html"] yearly statistics[/URL] and peak at firearm-related incidents (which, by the way, the total count in this particular study was 30 instances of firearm-related instances. In a whole year. 30. Thirty. Double-digits). Better yet, just look at [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate"]this handy list[/URL]. The firearm-related incidents we have here are usually related to criminal organisations (or just between criminal to criminal in general) and don't affect the average Svensson walking around town. But hey, keep talking shit and keep using anecdotal evidence.[/QUOTE] Completely ignoring the fact that we have 315 million more residents [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53132821]It's going to be a plethora of reasons behind school shootings, saying mental health/availability of firearms isn't really an issue is just untrue. The world is never as easy as 1 or 0.[/QUOTE] Yeah but firearms aren't going anywhere no matter what hopeful thinking you might have, that's just how it is. And the entire "mental health" point is pretty much just constructed by republicans defending their guns. I think of all the issues school reform is one that both parties can easily get behind and fix. No matter what kind of mental health availability you give kids, when you put someone who hates all of his classmates constantly surrounded by thousands of them, suffocating over social pressure completely lost in all the passing faces they're gonna get fucked up in the head.

[url]https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html[/url] America needs to do something about guns like other developed nations did decades ago. It will work - you just need to fucking do it.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;53132902][url]https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html[/url] America needs to do something about guns like other developed nations did decades ago. It will work - you just need to fucking do it.[/QUOTE] It arguably had no impact in Australia. Gun violence was already on a decline. It continued declining at the same rate it had been after the ban. Loads of illegal firearms are still confiscated all the time in Australia, many of them homemade now. The UK had a much easier time of it. Keep in mind the UK fits inside Texas, has no land borders with other violent countries, and really didn't have much of an ingrained gun culture. The UK also hasn't actually solved its [I]violence[/I] problem. Taking guns away didn't stop people from getting hurt and killed, it only changed the way it happened. It also didn't, you know, stop gun crime: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500[/url] [quote]The Met Police's figures showed there were 2,544 gun crime offences from April 2016 to April 2017 compared to 1,793 offences from 2015 until 2016.[/quote] That is for London alone. Additionally: [quote]Knife crime also increased by 24% with 12,074 recorded offences from 2016 to 2017.[/quote] Ouch. Also keep in mind that the UK government was happy to leave room for lords to keep their guns. :thinking: The UK is pretty much a perfect case study of "if you take guns away people will use something else" and "it's not about banning guns, it's about making them a hobby for the rich"

[QUOTE=Thom12255;53132902][URL]https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html[/URL] America needs to do something about guns like other developed nations did decades ago. It will work - you just need to fucking do it.[/QUOTE] I feel like this is one of those easier said than done type of things. It would be such a monumentally difficult task removing guns across the entirety of the United States, taking potentially decades

serious talk imagine being school age, and seeing your close friend or a sibling get killed in a school shooting How do you not feel like shit for every day after that for the rest of your life Imagine loosing a kid as a parent to a school shooting, school should be a safe haven, not this fucking thing that makes you worry you aren't going to see your child ever again. How would you not want to kill yourself after that This shit happening to schools of all things is just beyond fucked up.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53132878]Yeah, you are. But you're using those incidents as proof that "shootings happen everywhere" - as if it was fucking comparable between ie. Sweden's [I]30 [/I]firearm-related incidents mostly tied between criminal-to-criminal, and the US's[I] 33,000[/I]. Sure, your population is larger, but that's still a many times higher amount per 100,000. Like I said, I can't answer for Mexico, Brazil or China - I'm just debunking [I]that [/I]ridiculous anecdote.[/QUOTE] And this is exactly what I'm talking about, when you go from discussing mass shootings to total number of firearm deaths in the same breath and still act like you're talking about the same thing. To start with, over two thirds of our firearm-related deaths are suicides. Mass shootings account for a vanishingly tiny proportion of gun deaths, so if you want to refute his point, cite relevant numbers. [QUOTE=Thom12255;53132902][url]https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/world/gun-control-uk-australia/index.html[/url] America needs to do something about guns like other developed nations did decades ago. It will work - you just need to fucking do it.[/QUOTE] Both the UK and Australia had declining crime rates prior to their bans, and saw rises in violent crime rates following their bans. Australia resumed its decline shortly after, while the UK spiked some five years later. Meanwhile countries like Mexico and Jamaica, nations [i]far[/i] more similar to the US in terms of urban issues, crime, and social conditions, have overwhelmingly failed in implementing gun control as a means of social reform. These correlation-equals-causation assessments of the UK and Australia are no more valid than citing Switzerland to prove gun control is unnecessary or Russia to prove gun laws don't work. There's a lot more going on than that simplistic analysis accounts for.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53132924]These correlation-equals-causation assessments of the UK and Australia are no more valid than citing Switzerland to prove gun control is unnecessary or Russia to prove gun laws don't work. There's a lot more going on than that simplistic analysis accounts for.[/QUOTE] Switzerland is kind of a good example of the fact that guns can not be directly linked to the prevalence of violent crime. A quarter of the population is armed with actual automatic assault rifles (the kind that are too scary to be legal in the US) and it does not have an associated gun crime problem. It isn't a matter of "more guns = less violence" - it's a matter of there being no direct connection at all. I think the gun crime rate in the Czech Republic is pretty low, too, despite fairly lax gun laws. What this shows us is, as you said, correlation equals causation is bullshit. [img]https://i.imgur.com/nONBA8b.jpg[/img] Anyway, that's pretty much why I point at Switzerland when people say gun crime in the US is caused by the availability of guns.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53132924]And this is exactly what I'm talking about, when you go from discussing mass shootings to total number of firearm deaths in the same breath and still act like you're talking about the same thing. To start with, over two thirds of our firearm-related deaths are suicides. Mass shootings account for a vanishingly tiny proportion of gun deaths, so if you want to refute his point, cite relevant numbers.[/QUOTE] No matter how you look at it, suicide, homicide, shooting or mass shooting, this is a gun-related issue. Solving the root of those 33,000 deaths is completely valid. Furthermore, [URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls"]8,124 homicide-related firearm-incidents[/URL] is a shockingly high number put next to other causes, and [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/?utm_term=.46d0fc73bea9"]355 mass shootings in one year[/URL] is not what I would call a "vanishingly tiny proportion", or at least not something you can just wave away.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53132942]No matter how you look at it, suicide, homicide, shooting or mass shooting, this is a gun-related issue. Solving the root of those 33,000 deaths is completely valid. Furthermore, [URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls"]8,124 homicide-related firearm-incidents[/URL] is a shockingly high number put next to other causes, and [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/?utm_term=.46d0fc73bea9"]355 mass shootings in one year[/URL] is not what I would call a "vanishingly tiny proportion", or at least not something you can just wave away.[/QUOTE] [quote]The Reddit tracker defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people, including the gunman, are killed or injured by gunfire.[/quote] This definition includes a significant amount of gang skirmishes.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53132948]This definition includes a significant amount of gang skirmishes.[/QUOTE] I still don't think this means that they should just be handwaved away, though. Those are still very real people dying at the hands of firearm related incidents. The oversaturation of firearms in our country that leads to a massively prolific second-hand black market and such easy access for gangs is definitely something that I would consider as an issue that's symptomatic of the US' endemic gun problem. Not one that's easy to solve, but one that exists nonetheless.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53132919]serious talk imagine being school age, and seeing your close friend or a sibling get killed in a school shooting How do you not feel like shit for every day after that for the rest of your life[/QUOTE] There's a guy in my Discord-server, I don't know if he was at the school at the time of the shooting or if he was just connected, but he says his best friend got killed. [t]https://i.imgur.com/CXIsrYz.png[/t] (I've cut away responses from other members) I can't speak for the legitimacy, but these don't seem like the words of someone who's trolling. We're trying to get a hold of him, but he's gone offline.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53132958]I still don't think this means that they should just be handwaved away, though. Those are still very real people dying at the hands of firearm related incidents. The oversaturation of firearms that leads to such easy access for gangs is definitely something that I would consider as an issue that's symptomatic of the US' endemic gun problem. Not one that's easy to solve, but one that exists nonetheless.[/QUOTE] I agree absolutely. I don't mean to handwave it, but media likes to use x amount of mass shootings to make you envision Columbine shootings are taking place every day and just going unreported for being mundane. These stats are being blown up by a few specific cities that are way out of control. I'm trying to point out a manipulation tactic used by the media is all. 355 is of course way too many 4 or more person incidents but with context it makes a lot more sense. Gang confrontations happen daily in cities like Flint and Chicago, if firearms get involved it almost immediately becomes a mass shooting under that definition.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53132948]This definition includes a significant amount of gang skirmishes.[/QUOTE] I feel like these statistics are explained in depth each thread and nobody ever actually bothers to remember.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53132968]I agree absolutely. I don't mean to handwave it, but media likes to use x amount of mass shootings to make you envision Columbine shootings are taking place every day and just going unreported for being mundane. These stats are being blown up by a few specific cities that are way out of control.[/QUOTE] Well then how would we more usefully define these incidents? While "four or more deaths including the shooter in a firearm-related incident" is generic, I feel like it's still effective for literally defining what constitutes as a "mass shooting". From one point of view, you could absolutely consider a gang skirmish as a "mass shooting". It's just not one that's typically palatable to our media cycle and intuitive sensibilities of what a "mass shooting" is. So to pose my initial question again, what do you think is a more useful definition for these incidents that more accurately reflects the nature of our situation?

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53132960]There's a guy in my Discord-server, I don't know if he was at the school at the time of the shooting or if he was just connected, but he says his best friend got killed. -GOOD JOB QUOTING IT- (I've cut away responses from other members) I can't speak for the legitimacy, but these don't seem like the words of someone who's trolling. We're trying to get a hold of him, but he's gone offline.[/QUOTE] You might want to blur his name there out of courtesy.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;53132976]You might want to blur his name there out of courtesy.[/QUOTE] Well, my server is public and I figure if anyone recognizes his username it could be helpful in making sure he's okay, but I suppose you're right. I've edited it.

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53132942]No matter how you look at it, suicide, homicide, shooting or mass shooting, this is a gun-related issue. Solving the root of those 33,000 deaths is completely valid. Furthermore, [URL="https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls"]8,124 homicide-related firearm-incidents[/URL] is a shockingly high number put next to other causes, and [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/?utm_term=.46d0fc73bea9"]355 mass shootings in one year[/URL] is not what I would call a "vanishingly tiny proportion", or at least not something you can just wave away.[/QUOTE] Guns are not the root of the problem, that implies they're the sole reason these things happen, they are the tool used to commit them. The root is [i]why[/i] they're doing it. Not even taking a side on whether people should or shouldnt own them, i think it'd inherently be more productive to focus on the why and not the how.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53132975]Well then how would we more usefully define these incidents? While "four or more deaths including the shooter in a firearm-related incident" is generic, I feel like it's still effective for literally defining what constitutes as a "mass shooting". From one point of view, you could absolutely consider a gang skirmish as a "mass shooting". It's just not one that's typically palatable to our media cycle and intuitive sensibilities of what a "mass shooting" is. So to pose my initial question again, what do you think is a more useful definition for these incidents that more accurately reflects the nature of our situation?[/QUOTE] For which incidents? I'd call gang skirmishes what they are and split them off into their own category. They are one form of violence which definitely occurs with or without firearms and shouldn't really be factored directly into considerations with other types of violence. I'd define a mass shooting as someone or someones purposely targeting large quantities of defenseless people, because that's what comes to mind when you hear the term. I think calling gang skirmishes mass shootings is just a cheap alarmist tactic to raise the mass shooting counter. Gang violence in the US sucks but it rarely involves completely unrelated bystanders. You usually have to be involved with them in some way to be caught up in it.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53132929]Switzerland is kind of a good example of the fact that guns can not be directly linked to the prevalence of violent crime. A quarter of the population is armed with actual automatic assault rifles (the kind that are too scary to be legal in the US) and it does not have an associated gun crime problem. It isn't a matter of "more guns = less violence" - it's a matter of there being no direct connection at all. I think the gun crime rate in the Czech Republic is pretty low, too, despite fairly lax gun laws. What this shows us is, as you said, correlation equals causation is bullshit. [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/nONBA8b.jpg[/IMG] Anyway, that's pretty much why I point at Switzerland when people say gun crime in the US is caused by the availability of guns.[/QUOTE] Ugh the Switzerland trope again. Ok, look, Switzerland’s situation is unique and incomparable to the United States. Yes, the Swiss are allowed to purchase (yes purchase) their service rifles after leaving the military, but the rifles are converted into semi automatic afterwards. Furthermore, ammunition for their service rifles are kept at a local armory...FURTHERMORE..the Swiss have more stringent gun control than the US. For example, Swiss gun control is strict and requires mandatory background checks, mandatory firearms training, the right for the government to confiscate, three levels of weapons ownership and their associated restrictions (must prove a good reason why you need certain weapons), etc etc. if anything, Switzerland is a great example of why we need MORE legislation on firearms ownership. [URL]http://factmyth.com/factoids/switzerland-requires-citizens-to-own-guns/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Coyoteze;53132960] (I've cut away responses from other members) I can't speak for the legitimacy, but these don't seem like the words of someone who's trolling. We're trying to get a hold of him, but he's gone offline.[/QUOTE] I can't imagine the feeling, Just overwhelming pain and unending dread For real I hope he is fine and it was all a horrifying confusion, but even then that'd feel like shit

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53132988]Ugh the Switzerland trope again. Ok, look, Switzerland’s situation is unique and incomparable to the United States. Yes, the Swiss are allowed to purchase (yes purchase) their service rifles after leaving the military, but the rifles are converted into semi automatic afterwards. Furthermore, ammunition for their service rifles are kept at a local armory...FURTHERMORE..the Swiss have more stringent gun control than the US. For example, Swiss gun control is strict and requires mandatory background checks, mandatory firearms training, the right for the government to confiscate, three levels of weapons ownership and their associated restrictions (must prove a good reason why you need certain weapons), etc etc. if anything, Switzerland is a great example of why we need MORE legislation on firearms ownership.[/QUOTE] Uh... not quite. The Swiss aren't allowed to keep ammunition that's government property at home, yes. They can buy their own and store it in their homes - as well as other guns. All your mentions of mandatory training is really irrelevant considering Switzerland has mandatory military service which automatically qualifies you for it. If you miss conscription somehow (by being a woman, mostly) and still want a gun then you can separately get all the training required for it and it's not really that big of a deal. Loads of Swiss people own guns and nearly anyone in the country who wants one can get one. They still keep full auto rifles in their homes. Yes, they're converted when they leave the military. They still come home with them in full auto configuration until they're out.

:snip: ninja'd.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53132986]For which incidents? I'd call gang skirmishes what they are and split them off into their own category. They are one form of violence which definitely occurs with or without firearms and shouldn't really be factored directly into considerations with other types of violence. I'd define a mass shooting as someone or someones purposely targeting large quantities of defenseless people, because that's what comes to mind when you hear the term. I think calling gang skirmishes mass shootings is just a cheap alarmist tactic to raise the mass shooting counter.[/QUOTE] Just excluding gang skirmishes and making it into its own category seems reasonable to me. I think the unfortunate consequence is that it somewhat whitewashes what a mass shooting is. The same amount of people still died as a result of prolific firearm abuse. While you could say that the victims aren't necessarily defenseless in these instances, a lot of gang-related violence is the result of drivebys and other hits that are done on unsuspecting victims. The other question is does the victims being defenseless change the nature of the incident enough for them to be excluded? While I would respond with a very lukewarm and uncertain maybe, I can see it both ways. If schools do end up getting teachers concealed-carrying, does that mean that those shootings would no longer be considered under your definition because they weren't defenseless? I realize that these are semantic issues, but semantic issues can define and have implications on how we talk about these issues. So I think it's important to get them right.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53132996]Uh... not quite. The Swiss aren't allowed to keep ammunition that's government property at home, yes. They can buy their own and store it in their homes - as well as other guns. All your mentions of mandatory training is really irrelevant considering Switzerland has mandatory military service which automatically qualifies you for it. If you miss conscription somehow (by being a woman, mostly) and still want a gun then you can separately get all the training required for it. They still keep full auto rifles in their homes. Yes, they're converted when they leave the military. They still come home with them in full auto configuration until they're out.[/QUOTE] Ok so let’s ignore every other point about the incredibly strict Swiss gun control laws when compared to US laws. Firearms enthusiasts like to point to Switzerland as this paragon of gun freedom but their heads would explode if they actually lived there.

[QUOTE=Hilton;53132815]FIREARMS/MENTAL HEALTH ARE BARELY THE ISSUE. Schools in the U.S. operate like fucking prisons and lend themselves to this outcast behavior. The kid had issues in school, and so he gets expelled and fucked over academically?? Schools operate only to make as much money and best reviews possible, instead of to serve every students developmental and instructional needs.[/QUOTE] I think its all 3. Zero tolerance policies, counseling departments without any legs on them, and just general attitudes towards bullying in general are without a doubt awful and in need of improving. I think the biggest problem though is the variance. My school was pretty good on these areas, but there were schools in the same district as ours which paled in comparison in every single area. It's unbelievable that affluence has such an impact on the quality of the most essential thing in our lives -- our schools and educations -- especially when a solid education is the strongest and most essential tool for facilitating socioeconomic mobility. Essentially, it makes no sense that the people that need a good education the most are getting the worst quality of schooling. Mental health is definitely an issue and I can say that first hand. Even in my relatively privileged and affluent position, getting help has been a fucking nightmare. Mental health is nothing short of an epidemic and a health crisis in this country, and should be treated as such. A stressful make-it-or-break-it society where your entire worth and future is determined by your ability to neurotypically function and produce value is an incubation chamber for these sorts of issues. This ties into the stressful academic environment and atmosphere that you and others describe that's both informing and being informed by the crippling mental illness that affects so many people in our society. By the time you actually realize you [I]need[/I] help, getting it is an entirely different beast of a battle. As I said, I'm lucky enough to "easily" access it by having a lot of resources at my disposal, a relatively comfortable economic safety net, supportive parents, and insurance. These are luxuries that I'd be almost certain in saying the majority of our country does not have access to. And even in my position, waitlists are massive, therapists and counselors have no idea how to effectively do their jobs, psychiatrists are hardly ever taking new patients and are constantly booked, and actually finding effective solutions can feel like a hopeless losing battle that takes a lot of effort thats incredibly hard to muster when you're being adversely affected by mental illness. And finally, when it comes to guns, I don't think anyone can deny that the US' gun culture informs the nature of these attacks. I think the point of contention [I]should[/I] be just how much can we do about it. We live in a highly oversaturated environment where there are more guns than people. A huge portion of our nation loves them as a part of their lifestyle and another wants them out of the hands of all Americans entirely. The right to own and bear firearms is etched into the foundations of our nation. Everything about the nature of the situation surrounding guns in the US seems to suggest that it is indeed an exceptional case that other western solutions may very well not work at all for. Plenty of times, it is very well the case that all of the systems already in place failed and there was no avoiding the eventual outcome with common sense gun legislation. The problem, and the foundations for the tragedy, were much more deeply rooted in the DNA of our society. But our gun situation in the US is still, I think, a problem. As much as people love to say "guns dont kill people, people kill people" and "guns are just tools", the point is that they're highly efficient tools designed for killing things. While people point to knife attacks abroad, I definitely feel like the exceptional lethality rates of these incidents (especially something like vegas) would not nearly be approached with less efficient tools. The sooner we come to terms with that reality the sooner we can approach actually productive discourse regarding this topic. Unfortunately, I don't really put much faith in either Democrats nor Republicans to do much in the way of getting to the root of these problems and making improvements. Especially not in our obstructionist climate where the government is being shutdown ad-nauseum due to literal hostage situations imposed by McConnell and his goons. I also don't think the commander in chief is much of an effective champion for difficult to address and diagnose issues regarding our education, mental health, and gun culture, either. He's an ideologue who really only cares about bolstering his reputation through the tidings of the economy. I see more potential fruit in the American left than in the American right, though. Let's not pretend like this is a "both sides are equally bad" situation. At the end of the day, though, it all comes down to voting in politicians with productive attitudes and solid platforms (please actually fucking read the platforms of the people you're voting for). I hope I didn't over-extend myself with this post lol. I know that really long posts are a bit of a gamble on fp b/c there's a 99% chance that nobody is really gonna read to this point. If you did, though, gj [B]tl;dr[/B] all 3 are big problems and acknowledging that they are is the bare minimum for actually starting a productive discourse on this issue

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53133003]Just excluding gang skirmishes and making it into its own category seems reasonable to me. I think the unfortunate consequence is that it somewhat whitewashes what a mass shooting is. The same amount of people still died as a result of prolific firearm abuse. While you could say that the victims aren't necessarily defenseless in these instances, a lot of gang-related violence is the result of drivebys and other hits that are done on unsuspecting victims. The other question is does the victims being defenseless change the nature of the incident enough for them to be excluded? While I would respond with a very lukewarm and uncertain maybe, I can see it both ways. If schools do end up getting teachers concealed-carrying, does that mean that those shootings would no longer be considered under your definition because they weren't defenseless? I realize that these are semantic issues, but semantic issues can define and have implications on how we talk about these issues. So I think it's important to get them right.[/QUOTE] In gang shootouts it's not that they're not defenseless, it's that they're also committing attempted murder. It's two or more groups of people actively trying to kill one another for criminal reasons. I would still consider a teacher with a conceal carry weapon to be a victim of a mass shooting because the intent of the shooter was to victimize the defenseless. A teacher happening to be armed doesn't alter that intent.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53132988]Yes, the Swiss are allowed to purchase (yes purchase) their service rifles after leaving the military, but the rifles are converted into semi automatic afterwards.[/quote] So they're no different than rifles bought in the US. [quote]Furthermore, ammunition for their service rifles are kept at a local armory...[/quote] Service ammunition is, but getting a permit to buy the exact same ammunition is easy. You jsut walk into gun shop with a background check certificate and buy it. [quote]FURTHERMORE..the Swiss have more stringent gun control than the US. For example, Swiss gun control is strict and requires mandatory background checks[/quote] So does most of the US. [quote]mandatory firearms training,[/quote] That's inccorect. [quote]the right for the government to confiscate,[/quote] The US already ocnfiscate firearms from people barred from their possession. [quote]three levels of weapons ownership and their associated restrictions (must prove a good reason why you need certain weapons), etc etc. [/quote] You don't need the justify firearms ownership in Switzerland. Anyone not from a list of barred countries can get a permit.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53133006]Ok so let’s ignore every other point about the incredibly strict Swiss gun control laws when compared to US laws. Firearms enthusiasts like to point to Switzerland as this paragon of gun freedom but their heads would explode if they actually lived there.[/QUOTE] No, firearms enthusiasts like to point to Switzerland as an example of the fact that guns don't cause violence. Unless you plan to deny that 25% of Swiss people own firearms and are allowed to keep ammunition for those firearms in their homes, that example stands. You're right, I probably wouldn't like it much. But the fact is guns are everywhere in Switzerland and they do not have an associated gun crime problem. You know what you are doing is a dishonest palming-off tactic and I'm not sure how far you think it will carry your argument or why you are doing it in the first place. I could just as easily point at the Czech Republic next and you would have to find a whole new set of excuses which I could also easily deconstruct.