Gun Control

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

So now we have it. The real Barack Obama emerges. A man who wants to forcibly take US Citizen’s rightfully owned firearms, and of which are protected by the US Constitution, away from us.

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

The actions of Great Britain and Australia weren’t so-called “common-sense” and “modest” laws, as Obama puts it, they were extreme confiscation’s and bans.

And the mass shootings continued regardless? Or did they stop?

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

I don't have a quotable source on it, but I've heard it from sources I'd trust. It's pretty irrelevant to the discussion in fairness.

Jank is being purposefully obtuse about making his point, I'm attempting to cut through said obtuseness and get to the point.

It's not really irrelevant to the discussion though. The implication of that argument is that if America banned guns in every state they would have an easier time restricting the supply. Notwithstanding the sheer number of Americans with the skills to make guns who would be made redundant, and the massive amounts of unpolicable land which could house highly profitable clandestine weapons factories. There's also a large uncontrollable border with Mexico, which certainly isn't short of guns or those with the skills and infrastructure in place to traffic them. In fact it would only make America's gun problem worse because said factories and traffickers would have an incentive to produce guns more suitable for serious crime, such as fully automatic rifles which are currently difficult enough to get your hands on relative to semi-autos to the point where there are very few of them.

Brian?

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's not really irrelevant to the discussion though. The implication of that argument is that if America banned guns in every state they would have an easier time restricting the supply. Notwithstanding the sheer number of Americans with the skills to make guns who would be made redundant, and the massive amounts of unpolicable land which could house highly profitable clandestine weapons factories. There's also a large uncontrollable border with Mexico, which certainly isn't short of guns or those with the skills and infrastructure in place to traffic them. In fact it would only make America's gun problem worse because said factories and traffickers would have an incentive to produce guns more suitable for serious crime, such as fully automatic rifles which are currently difficult enough to get your hands on relative to semi-autos to the point where there are very few of them.

It's irrelevant because no one is seriously talking about banning all guns or taking them from citizens.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

And the mass shootings continued regardless? Or did they stop?

Not sure about mass shootings, but I've read that since the banning of guns in the UK, the rate of crime (especially violent crime) has risen and firearm use in crimes in the UK has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. Britain has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe, and five times higher than the US. And in Australia, crime has been rising since enacting their sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after Australian gun owners were forced to surrender their personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. And since their ban, firearm related murders were up 19%.

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

It's irrelevant because no one is seriously talking about banning all guns or taking them from citizens.

Clearly they are, mate. Otherwise, Australia and the UK wouldn't even be mentioned.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

Clearly they are, mate. Otherwise, Australia and the UK wouldn't even be mentioned.

They're only mentioned by those who are introducing them as strawman arguments, not people who are personally invested in banning/removing guns.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

Does nothing to explain away the fact that people argue for banning guns but also believe that drugs shouldn't be banned because people will get them anyway.

You're correct: those people would be idiots. However, we're talking about people who would both dislike guns and be in favor of drugs: because guns used responsibly are used to hurt other people/animals (self defense/hunting), while in responsible use, drugs are only used to harm yourself. You're arguing a completely different thing from what I was getting at.

jank wrote: »

Sigh, hence they would be illegal in Limerick....?
Seem you are deliberately missing the point.

Clearly the fact that guns are illegal in Limerick does nothing to make them disappear. You me and Brian Amerika Manic Moran pretty much most users on this thread I think all agree on that. All he said was CR was a source of black market guns in Limerick, which I wouldn't raise an eyebrow to given that virtually half of the people I worked with when I lived in Ireland were all from the Czech Republic - my only point being there are a lot of Czechs around, and a few of them could likely find ways to smuggle a weapon into the country.

AbusesToilets (Ew?) wrote:

One of the biggest obstacles to any discussion of legislating new gun laws is the perceived dishonesty of those who want to increase restrictions, by the pro-gun side. If there was a proposal to overhaul the existing NFA to update it, for example removing restrictions on things like suppressors or short barreled firearms,

your post reminded me, someone went and not just designed a gun with a silencer, but designed a silencer with a gun.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/technology/coming-to-a-gun-store-near-you-gun-with-built-in-silencer/article/444223

Politics aside, that's neat tech.

Walshyn93 wrote:

Hardly. Perhaps for gangsters who have connections and will get them regardless, but not for mass murderers. In Czech Republic is not easy for someone outside of the country to come in and get one. A Norweigian mass murderer travelled 200 miles from his home to Belgium to buy his weapons on the black market rather than travelling 70 miles to Czech.

This all came from 5 minutes of research on wikipedia mind you, as did most of what you see on boards, but take it as you will.

You just defeated your own argument.

MadYaker

The UK and Australia didn't introduce blanket bans on guns. Considering the hold the NRA and other pro gun lobbyists have over congress it's unlikely any meaningful changes to any laws around gun owner ship will be brought in any time soon.

It seems to me that almost all of these events are carried out by disenfranchised young males with mental issues and nobody to turn to. The mass killings are just a symptom of a deeper issue and while everybody, even Obama, all get caught up talking about gun control they miss the point. Depression and mental illness in men is a huge issue in loads of developed nations in Ireland we have a disproportionately high suicide rate among men, in America they have these mass killings. Government needs to target these people with services to give them the help they need and to break the stigma around mental health. The gun debate is just a distraction really.

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

You're correct: those people would be idiots. However, we're talking about people who would both dislike guns and be in favor of drugs: because guns used responsibly are used to hurt other people/animals (self defense/hunting), while in responsible use, drugs are only used to harm yourself. You're arguing a completely different thing from what I was getting at.



You just defeated your own argument.

Firstly. You seem to value the life of a perpetrator in a self-defence case as much as the victim. Billions of animals are killed in slaughterhouses each year. Hunted animals have a far more humane death and are far fewer in number.

Secondly, I don't see how I've defeated my own argument. Perhaps you saying that is a desperate attempt to shut down my argument, but simply stating the fact that criminals have connections and can get around the barriers in Czech Republic doesn't change the fact that they will find a way to get around any barriers in any country, as there are illegal guns in every single country on earth.

Overheal

You seem to value the life of a perpetrator in a self-defence case as much as the victim.

Clearly you cannot extrapolate that theory about my viewpoint from anything I said, as it's false.

jank

Overheal wrote: »

Clearly the fact that guns are illegal in Limerick does nothing to make them disappear. You me and Brian Amerika Manic Moran pretty much most users on this thread I think all agree on that. All he said was CR was a source of black market guns in Limerick, which I wouldn't raise an eyebrow to given that virtually half of the people I worked with when I lived in Ireland were all from the Czech Republic - my only point being there are a lot of Czechs around, and a few of them could likely find ways to smuggle a weapon into the country.

Fair point, however I was responding to his first post here.
The implication of this post was that the issue with illegal handguns in places like New York and Chicago is the result of legal gun ownershiper elsewhere.

The fundamental problem with the gun control narrative is that it does virtually nothing to stop the vast majority of gun crime where the arms have been acquired illegally. Ireland has one of the most stringent gun laws in the world due to its history of paramilitary's. Yet, Dublin is on top of the EU list in regards gun related murders.

Therefore the question itself was fallacy.

Jim2007

jank wrote: »

The fundamental problem with the gun control narrative is that it does virtually nothing to stop the vast majority of gun crime where the arms have been acquired illegally. Ireland has one of the most stringent gun laws in the world due to its history of paramilitary's. Yet, Dublin is on top of the EU list in regards gun related murders.

Therefore the question itself was fallacy.

Remind me again when did we have the last school shoot out in Dublin? More gun control plus the collection of guns already in circulation means that average Joe lunatic is less likely to amass a large collection of guns no matter what set of statistics you want to bring up.

Manic Moran

CNN had an article on the NRA's funding today. Some surprising numbers (I wish I had $50k to donate), but some unsurprising information as well (With millions of members, membership dues alone provides millions of dollars)

http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/

Manic Moran

CNN had an article on the NRA's funding today. Some surprising numbers (I wish I had $50k to donate), but some unsurprising information as well (With millions of members, membership dues alone provides millions of dollars)

http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/

Amerika

I’ve been reading reports recently that appears the viewpoint about America and its 2nd amendment isn’t all that crazy anymore, in some parts of Europe. That in Austria, because of the influx of Islamic immigrants, and people wanting to be able to defend themselves, that long guns have been flying off the shelves, and that Austrians who haven’t already purchased a gun may not have a chance to get one for some time because they’re all sold out. And the trend to acquire guns for self-defense is likely to begin to happen in other countries that have taken in the immigrants... like Germany and Sweden. Any substance to this?

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Some surprising numbers (I wish I had $50k to donate),

"It is a good percentage of my income [5% to 10%], but I want to do everything I can easily do to preserve my freedoms," said the donor, who requested to remain anonymous. "I hope the money will be used to help conservative or libertarian minded candidates win elections."


Ah, more money in politics...

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

Here's a few questions: where do the guns on the black market come from? Where do the guns in cities like Chicago and New York come from?

The flood of guns in Chicago tends to come from across the state line in Indiana where the laws on guns are lax.

Overheal

The same places and via the same methods drugs run around the country. I can drive in and out of New York without ever being stopped, frisked, or searched. My jeep could in theory be full of assault rifles and drive right down Broadway St.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

No, we don't. You didn't answer the questions asked because the answers were too uncomfortable.

The vast majority of guns held illegally were bought legally and either sold privately or stolen.

Registering all firearms would stem this flow. It won't reduce the number of guns held illegally right now, but it will stop the number increasing. What's the objection to a federally administered firearms register?

Another option would be to require gun owners to carry insurance on their guns.

Eric Cartman

America has a mental health problem, not a gun problem.

Guns are just as available in many countries around the world , yet you don't see the likes of what goes on there.

The right to own a gun is protected by the second amendment and that should be preserved. I would even go as far as to say gun control is too restrictive. If high powered centre fire pistols and concealed carry were legal in Ireland, I would definitely be signing up to that.

BoJack Horseman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

America has a mental health problem, not a gun problem.

Does it?
Does the US population have a higher propensity toward homicide or severe mental illness compared to humanity in general?

I always assumed such things were pretty constant.

The right to own a gun is protected by the second amendment and that should be preserved

I'd like to see it enforced.
"..... as part of a well regulated militia"...

I'd love to see the US government actually ensure that gun owners have they "well regulated militias" set up & running.
Not in a militia, then no automatic gun ownership rights.

do it right after all.

Manic Moran

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Does it?
I'd love to see the US government actually ensure that gun owners have they "well regulated militias" set up & running.
Not in a militia, then no automatic gun ownership rights.

They do. Indeed, if we don't register for the militia, it is punishable by up to five years in prison, and a $250,000 fine. Further, it can really screw us over later in life, as it precludes us for getting jobs, loans, training, and, if an immigrant, citizenship. Officially, a man must register within 30 days of turning 18, though there is actually an 8-year grace period to do so.

In actuality, the feds have not actually prosecuted anyone criminally for it, that I'm aware of, since 1986. (Interestingly, Mohammed Ali was convicted, sentenced to five years, and fined $10,000. Conviction later overturned on conscientious objector considerations) However, the denial of benefits or opportunities to those who do not register is routine through today.

States may apply their own penalties/requirements in addition. Some do, some don't.

eire4 wrote: »

Another option would be to require gun owners to carry insurance on their guns.

Why? If the firearm is used by the owner, then the owner's personal insurance (usually provided through home or auto insurance) will cover it.
If the firearm is stolen, then there is no liability to the owner for the incident to insure. If the firearm is used by the owner illegally, then no insurance policy will cover it.

BoJack Horseman

Manic Moran wrote: »

They do. Indeed, if we don't register for the militia, it is punishable by up to five years in prison, and a $250,000 fine. Further, it can really screw us over later in life, as it precludes us for getting jobs, loans, training, and, if an immigrant, citizenship. Officially, a man must register within 30 days of turning 18, though there is actually an 8-year grace period to do so.

hmm.... I know that my father in law & brother in law are not members of any militia, they own many many firearms & various carry licenses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States#Active_militia_groups

There doesn't seem to be any in Milwaukee for them to join

Manic Moran

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

hmm.... I know that my father in law & brother in law are not members of any militia, they own many many firearms & various carry licenses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States#Active_militia_groups

There doesn't seem to be any in Milwaukee for them to join

In that case, either you know incorrectly, they have been removed from the militia due to age (46 or older), or they are likely in violation of the requirements Title 50, US Code, S.453.

Except as otherwise provided in this title [sections 451 to 471a of this Appendix] it shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder. The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to any alien lawfully admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (66 Stat. 163; 8 U.S.C. 1101), for so long as he continues to maintain a lawful nonimmigrant status in the United States.

This is required for the militia of the United States (Title 10, US Code S311) to call up its manpower.

People don't discuss it much, as it hasn't come up in over forty years, but the vast majority of US males are or were in the federal militia. As mentioned, some States have it as well. Wisconsin apparently does not. Texas' milita encompasses all males to age 60, though I'm unsure as to their regulatory scheme.

There is currently talk of making all females part of the federal militia now as well, with the recent push to make the military fully gender-integrated. A bill (HR1509) was introduced into the House earlier this year on the matter.

Overheal

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Does it?

Does the US population have a higher propensity toward homicide or severe mental illness compared to humanity in general?



I always assumed such things were pretty constant.

Well when you establish a social system that pits people in various corners, yeah they do stupid ****. Went to college? Any criminal record? Cool, you're excluded from a huge chunks of jobs that do background checks. Unemployed? Barely a safety net. Police, never around when you need them, never in places they're more likely to get shot (irony).

Especially when it comes to mass shootings, largely carried out by young white males. Why? Many manifesto's 'suicide notes' discuss social issues, a lot of the time girls. Flirt with a girl - that's sexual harassment. Can't get a girlfriend in high school, well you just lost life, basically, the way our culture is ingrained. And when you're not nurtured to talk about what's bothering you with people or to get help, you as a wise, knowledgeable (depressed, stupid, emotional) teenager think guns are the solution - because guns are always the solution. Terrorists? guns. Robbers? guns. Home defense? gun. Fight the British? Gun. Threatened? Gun. It's not hard for a kid who feels powerless to watch someone with a gun on TV or something (commonly shown to be the one in control of a situation) and not think "hey that's a great idea." Even young kids. The kid who shot his neighbor because she wouldn't show him her puppy? That's not something the kid just thought of from nothing, that idea was influenced.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why? If the firearm is used by the owner, then the owner's personal insurance (usually provided through home or auto insurance) will cover it.
If the firearm is stolen, then there is no liability to the owner for the incident to insure. If the firearm is used by the owner illegally, then no insurance policy will cover it.

To require gun owners to have liabaility gun insurance that would cover damages from negligent acts involving their guns would be a strong incentive towards responsible gun ownership. It would also give victims of gun violence much needed funds for medical and other costs.
Making gun owners carry liability insurance makes them focus on safe and responsible gun owners so their rates don't go up. The damages for victims is huge. There is lost wages and medical costs involved for those injured or funeral costs for the victims family in the event of death. These burdens which the victims of gun violence should not have to bear are now taken care of. The gun owner if negligent then becomes responsible for the costs involved not medicare, the victims insurance or the victim himself or relatives in the event of death.
Insurance companies obviously always want to avoid claims as much as possible. So there are always on the look out for innovation and ways to make things safer.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

To require gun owners to have liabaility gun insurance that would cover damages from negligent acts involving their guns would be a strong incentive towards responsible gun ownership. It would also give victims of gun violence much needed funds for medical and other costs.

You're missing my point. Any such acts are already covered under insurance I already have for my household. I don't need to have additional insurance to cover them, if they are done by gun, knife, or dropping a piano on someone's head when moving into an apartment.

Specific example in point: http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2014/01/does-your-homeowners-insurance-cover-injuries.html

For instance, if a policyholder accidently discharges his shotgun while he's unloading shells, any injuries to bystanders will likely be covered by homeowner's insurance because the accident was caused by the policyholder's personal property (the gun)

My policy not only covers acts I do, but also the acts conducted by anyone in my household.

There's an argument to be made, if you want, for mandating that everyone make sure they are covered by such a policy, similar to the Health Insurance mandate, but there is no specific reason it must be limited to acts involving firearms or to people who have firearms. There is certainly no need to mandate that firearms owners must additionally have firearms insurance if they already have a homeowner's or renter's insurance policy, which is likely most people.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're missing my point. Any such acts are already covered under insurance I already have for my household. I don't need to have additional insurance to cover them, if they are done by gun, knife, or dropping a piano on someone's head when moving into an apartment.

Specific example in point: http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2014/01/does-your-homeowners-insurance-cover-injuries.html



My policy not only covers acts I do, but also the acts conducted by anyone in my household.

There's an argument to be made, if you want, for mandating that everyone make sure they are covered by such a policy, similar to the Health Insurance mandate, but there is no specific reason it must be limited to acts involving firearms or to people who have firearms. There is certainly no need to mandate that firearms owners must additionally have firearms insurance if they already have a homeowner's or renter's insurance policy, which is likely most people.

Your missing my point that having to have specific gun liability insurance creates incentives for gun owners to be respsonsible.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

Your missing my point that having to have specific gun liability insurance creates incentives for gun owners to be respsonsible.

In what way?

I don't want my homeowner's insurance to go up. So I have a fiscal-related insurance incentive already to not do stupid things which may require drawing upon that policy (In addition to the other incentives like the amount of hassle I'd be dealing with, and possible criminal charges).

How would creating an additional category of insurance that I would have to pay for provide further incentive for me to be responsible?

Overheal

Well it's like liability insurance, to qualify for your plan you have to uphold certain criteria like maintaining OSHA standards and such; cheaper policies for having trigger locks, for instance.

Not a solution to anything though, just a minute point.

brianpierce

I think there should be exceptions made for people living in one-off housing in rural Ireland. It would have to be tightly policed, but if people living in those settings wanted a gun, then I would have no issue with them having it. They shouldn't be allowed to take it off their property (and should be given a custodial sentence if they do so). But otherwise I think they should be free to use it in self-defence, once they feel that their life is in danger. There have been too many stories of defenceless (particularly older) people living in isolated country homes who have been put through terrible ordeals by roaming gangs.

The Black Oil

I've heard it said that ordinary NRA members have some solutions/ideas on this issue, but that the leadership has no interesting in hearing them. Is there any truth to this?

Manic Moran

The Black Oil wrote: »

I've heard it said that ordinary NRA members have some solutions/ideas on this issue, but that the leadership has no interesting in hearing them. Is there any truth to this?

Yes. Senior leadership of NRA is not entirely in-step with its members. However, the membership supports them anyway given that they're the most effective game in town with sufficient clout to do anything.

The Black Oil

Eric Cartman wrote: »

America has a mental health problem, not a gun problem.

It's funny how much this seems to have become the default response. It's repeated ad nauseum now to the extent that it may as well be a bumper sticker or a stupid meme. It's almost a way of saying 'no no, not guns, now please look over here'.

Undoubtedly mental health plays a role. The problem with the meme is what's the next part of the sentence? What's going to be done about mental health? Where are the calls to train more people in this field?

PopePalpatine

The Black Oil wrote: »

It's funny how much this seems to have become the default response. It's repeated ad nauseum now to the extent that it may as well be a bumper sticker or a stupid meme. It's almost a way of saying 'no no, not guns, now please look over here'.

Undoubtedly mental health plays a role. The problem with the meme is what's the next part of the sentence? What's going to be done about mental health? Where are the calls to train more people in this field?

God help you if you suggest that more public funding needs to be put into mental health. Then it's suddenly "socialised medicine" and helping no-good "moochers" (a term said by Martin Shkreli-wannabes with the same bile that Timothy McVeigh reserved for non-whites).

walshyn93

PopePalpatine wrote: »

God help you if you suggest that more public funding needs to be put into mental health. Then it's suddenly "socialised medicine" and helping no-good "moochers" (a term said by Martin Shkreli-wannabes with the same bile that Timothy McVeigh reserved for non-whites).

Interestingly Donald Trump said in his interview with Anderson Cooper that he thinks the solution to massacres is mental healthcare.

Eric Cartman

The Black Oil wrote: »

It's funny how much this seems to have become the default response. It's repeated ad nauseum now to the extent that it may as well be a bumper sticker or a stupid meme. It's almost a way of saying 'no no, not guns, now please look over here'.

Undoubtedly mental health plays a role. The problem with the meme is what's the next part of the sentence? What's going to be done about mental health? Where are the calls to train more people in this field?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Switzerland and Sweden have pretty high rates of gun ownership. The swiss even rejected tighter gun controls in 2011.

there is a reason these type of things happen in the US. and its not the guns. Sure you can buy alcohol almost anywhere in countries like france, germany, portugal , yet Ireland are still the ones with the drinking problem.

this is purely an education & health issue. Banning guns is just the media friendly band-aid that is being called for. It won't solve the problem and it'll manifest itself in other ways.

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Switzerland and Sweden have pretty high rates of gun ownership. The swiss even rejected tighter gun controls in 2011.

there is a reason these type of things happen in the US. and its not the guns. Sure you can buy alcohol almost anywhere in countries like france, germany, portugal , yet Ireland are still the ones with the drinking problem.

this is purely an education & health issue. Banning guns is just the media friendly band-aid that is being called for. It won't solve the problem and it'll manifest itself in other ways.

No one is seriously talk about banning guns. Can we all agree on that and move on? Gun control, that's the issue. The level of gun control.


Sweden has some of the gun control methods I'm advocating. All quite sensible:

In Sweden, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms, firearms disguised as other objects, and armour-piercing, incendiary and expanding ammunition.

In Sweden, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited


In Sweden, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is permitted only with special authorisation

In Sweden, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under licence, in some cases, but not for the protection of person or property

In Sweden, civilian possession of rifles and shotguns is regulated by law

Switzerland also has common sense gun laws:

In Switzerland, some 'manual repetition rifles' for sport and hunting may be owned without a licence, but in other cases only licensed gun owners75 74 76 9 may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Switzerland are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, self-defence, and collection

The minimum age for gun ownership in Switzerland is 18 years75

An applicant for a firearm licence in Switzerland must pass a background check which considers mental, criminal and domestic violence75 records

In Switzerland, third party character references for each gun licence applicant are not required51

Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Switzerland stipulates80 that a gun licence should be denied or revoked

In Switzerland, an understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required for a permit to carry a hidden handgun, but is not required for a firearm licence

In Switzerland, gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm licence every five years (license to carry)

In Switzerland, authorities maintains a record72 84 of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Licensed firearm owners in Switzerland are permitted to possess any number of firearms

Licensed firearm owners in Switzerland are permitted to possess any quantity of ammunition

The NRA would object to 90% of the above. Sensible gun laws.

Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

AbusesToilets

They are sensible to you perhaps, but I would take issue with many of them. Many of the requirements you have laid out would be used as pretexts by those who are anti-gun to deny an applicant. Having to prove a reason to possess is a very open ended term and the interpretation of such apt to vary between various jurisdictions. This current happens already in cases of applications for things such as suppressors or rifles with length less than 16 inches.

You may feel that no one is talking about banning all guns, however those who are pushing for more legislation would very much like to pursue such a policy. They take the same approach as those who are anti abortion; small, incremental roll backs.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They are sensible to you perhaps, but I would take issue with many of them. Many of the requirements you have laid out would be used as pretexts by those who are anti-gun to deny an applicant. Having to prove a reason to possess is a very open ended term and the interpretation of such apt to vary between various jurisdictions. This current happens already in cases of applications for things such as suppressors or rifles with length less than 16 inches.

You may feel that no one is talking about banning all guns, however those who are pushing for more legislation would very much like to pursue such a policy. They take the same approach as those who are anti abortion; small, incremental roll backs.

I know there's the attitude among gun rights activists that any regulations are a "thin end of the wedge". That's open to debate. However I keep seeing the point made that Switzerland in particular has high gun ownership and low gun violence, therefore the problem isn't the guns. I was responding to one such post.My post above contradicts this narrative. Switzerland has much tighter gun control than the US, so let's set that aside for once and for all.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

I know there's the attitude among gun rights activists that any regulations are a "thin end of the wedge". That's open to debate. However I keep seeing the point made that Switzerland in particular has high gun ownership and low gun violence, therefore the problem isn't the guns. I was responding to one such post.My post above contradicts this narrative. Switzerland has much tighter gun control than the US, so let's set that aside for once and for all.

That argument still fails on two fundamental points.

One, only law abiding citizens are affected by gun laws. All you succeed in doing is making it more difficult for them to action their right to own firearms.

Criminals will still avail themselves of guns, so unless you pursue a policy to remove all firearms, you are unlikely to accomplish anything notable.

Two, mass shootings are unlikely to be affected by new restrictions on gun ownership. How can you predict the actions of a crazy person?

The best solution to prevent these incidents is more policing and mental health care resources being available to those who need them.

meepins

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Does it?
Does the US population have a higher propensity toward homicide or severe mental illness compared to humanity in general?

A particular group within the US population has a higher propensity towards violence and homicide.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That argument still fails on two fundamental points.

One, only law abiding citizens are affected by gun laws. All you succeed in doing is making it more difficult for them to action their right to own firearms.

Criminals will still avail themselves of guns, so unless you pursue a policy to remove all firearms, you are unlikely to accomplish anything notable.

Two, mass shootings are unlikely to be affected by new restrictions on gun ownership. How can you predict the actions of a crazy person?

The best solution to prevent these incidents is more policing and mental health care resources being available to those who need them.

Those are fine points, well worth debating. I haven't time now, but I'll get back to them.

Are we agreed the use of Switzerland on Sweden as a comparison is inaccurate as they have much tighter regulation?

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Those are fine points, well worth debating. I haven't time now, but I'll get back to them.

Are we agreed the use of Switzerland on Sweden as a comparison is inaccurate as they have much tighter regulation?

It's a difficult comparison because the circumstances in social terms are so different. I would think Canada would be a better comparison, not that I have the data to hand but they would likely be closer in attitude and history to the US.

Manach

As the above poster mentioned, history those seem to play a key part. Comparing Canada vs USA is that of loyalist vs Rebels. In that for the former their foundation myths were of gradual evolution of political growth. The latter, the constant harking back to their revolution period: where citizen militas and concepts of the limits of state power, mark a divergence where guns are concerned.

eire4

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Switzerland and Sweden have pretty high rates of gun ownership. The swiss even rejected tighter gun controls in 2011.

there is a reason these type of things happen in the US. and its not the guns. Sure you can buy alcohol almost anywhere in countries like france, germany, portugal , yet Ireland are still the ones with the drinking problem.

this is purely an education & health issue. Banning guns is just the media friendly band-aid that is being called for. It won't solve the problem and it'll manifest itself in other ways.

Indeed guns by themselves as an inert object cannot kill people however there presence makes it a lot more likely people will be killed.


Nobody that I know of has come out and talked about banning guns. If I am incorrect in that please do name what politicians have proposed banning guns.
This common refrain smacks of fear tactics not based in reality.

ilkhanid

PopePalpatine wrote: »

God help you if you suggest that more public funding needs to be put into mental health. Then it's suddenly "socialised medicine" and helping no-good "moochers" (a term said by Martin Shkreli-wannabes with the same bile that Timothy McVeigh reserved for non-whites).

Of course. The Republican are in an ideological bind over this issue. They chant that "something should be done" about mental health, but in fact they are constitutionally opposed to the Government "doing anything"at all...that should and could be done by the Free Market. This talk is just a stick to whack the democrats and a distraction from the gun issue. In fact, I doubt the Republican really care all that much. The People Who Matter are in well-to-do gated communities, well-guarded mansions and lofty penthouses, so the GOP are inured to gun violence, they regard the amount of current killing (privately, of course) as an acceptable level of violence..

eire4 wrote: »

Nobody that I know of has come out and talked about banning guns. If I am incorrect in that please do name what politicians have proposed banning guns. This common refrain smacks of fear tactics not based in reality.

"Banning guns" is a straw man raised by pro-gun activists at any attempt to regulate forearms. The NRA, and their supporters operate according to a "slippery slope/Thin end of the wedge" theory, by which all attempt at regulation will ineluctably lead to demands for gun confiscation. They are also opposed to any regulation for the reason that it would obstruct their plans to broaden gun rights. They don't believe in standing still: guns rights must be increased, all existing regulations must eventually be struck down

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You may feel that no one is talking about banning all guns, however those who are pushing for more legislation would very much like to pursue such a policy. They take the same approach as those who are anti abortion; small, incremental roll backs.

Q E D. How can anything be done as long as the gunlovers are open to no compromise, as long as they have this "All or nothing at all attitude"

AbusesToilets wrote: »

One, only law abiding citizens are affected by gun laws. All you succeed in doing is making it more difficult for them to action their right to own firearms..

Most of the people responsible for these rampages were considered "law abiding citizens" up until they moment they started slaughtering people in schools, shops and main streets.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The best solution to prevent these incidents is more policing and mental health care resources being available to those who need them.

That's the solution? Do you think Police can be at every mall, church, school......? More mental health resources? Many of these people are not what might be called "mentally ill". Misanthropy, resentment, grievance, inner rage and begrudgery don't show up on charts, and the people most affected won't be in clincs anyway. As you said yourself "How can you predict the actions of a crazy person?"

Amirani

New York Times runs its first front-page editorial since 1920 title "End the Gun Epidemic in America". Pretty scathing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region

Says that "It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency...Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs."

AbusesToilets

Shooting happened in California, the state with one, if not the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

That editorial is fairly representative of the views of the majority of those on the pro gun control side, despite the repeated claim that they are not interested in banning all guns. Focusing on gun control and ignoring the more important issue re: how to effectively prevent potential terrorist attacks from extremists, is willfully misleading.

Amirani

AbusesToilets wrote: »

That editorial is fairly representative of the views of the majority of those on the pro gun control side, despite the repeated claim that they are not interested in banning all guns. Focusing on gun control and ignoring the more important issue re: how to effectively prevent potential terrorist attacks from extremists, is willfully misleading.

The majority of them can't be affectively prevented.

I agree that it's often about much more than gun control and focussing exclusively on gun control is pointless. However, it is still something that should happen.