The Second Amendment

Banzai said:

I'm Swiss, and nope, we're not.

That's US gun nut propaganda.

Click to expand...

www sez said:

Swiss militiamen may keep their issued personal weapon in their home.  A popular referendum to prohibit this practice was rejected in February 2011.

Click to expand...

wiki sez said:

Switzerland has mandatory military service (German: Militärdienst; French: service militaire; Italian: servizio militare) in the Swiss Army for all able-bodied male citizens, who are conscripted when they reach the age of majority,[1] though women may volunteer for any position.[2] In 2016, an expert commission that the Swiss government charged with reviewing the country's conscription system recommended that women be included in the military draft in order to meet its annual demand of 18,000 new soldiers a year.[3]
People determined unfit for service, where fitness is defined as "satisfying physically, intellectually and mentally requirements for military service or civil protection service and being capable of accomplishing these services without harming oneself or others",[4] are exempted from service but pay an additional 3% of annual income tax until the age of 30, unless they are affected by a disability.[5]
Almost 20% of all conscripts were found unfit for military or civilian service in 2008; the rate is generally higher in urban cantons such as Zurich and Geneva than in the rural ones.[6] Swiss citizens living abroad are generally exempted from conscription in time of peace,[7] while dual citizenship by itself does not grant such exemption.[8]
On September 22, 2013, a referendum was held that aimed to abolish conscription in Switzerland.[9] However, the referendum failed with over 73% of the electorate voting against it, showing strong support for conscription in Switzerland.
-----------
Every Swiss soldier used to be issued with a sealed box of ammunition, but following a Swiss Federal Parliament decision to discontinue the practice in 2007, ammunition have been withdrawn starting in early 2008.[15] Conscripts who are unwilling to carry a weapon on moral grounds may apply for weaponless service.[16]
=======
In 2008 switzerland started harmonizing its gun laws with the EU (even though not an EU member).

Click to expand...

I was drafted and hated it, but in hindsight it has merits. For the Swiss having a population that is (almost) completely properly trained about gun safety has to have benefits.

=====
This is a pretty emotional topic and if the political elite were willing to give up their armed guards, I might see disarming the public, but only after that. The hypocrisy around this topic is thick.

Australia is often presented as an example of a successful gun restriction policy.  From their own data it is reducing gun homicides, but has not completely stopped them.  (they passed original gun legislation in 96, recently made it tighter-stats from au gov 2007)

So in the margin it could have an impact but would not be a complete solution. For people who feel strongly about this we do have a legal mechanism for repealing amendments (like the 2nd), so pursue that to do this properly.

JR

PS: I propose instead of depriving law abiding citizens from gun ownership, we take guns away from street criminals in Chicago. Last I checked they were already illegal so we don't need a new law for that. High profile single shooter events get disproportionate media attention . Chicago just passed its 500th gun homicide for the year. Now IMO that deserves more media  attention., and remedy (enforcement, not new laws). 

mattiasNYC said:

Well first of all driving while under the influence is already illegal, and secondly cars aren't created with the intent of being used as a weapon. T

Click to expand...

Tell that to the victims of the recent terror attacks in the UK and Europe. Tell that to the victims of 9/11

The obvious fallacy in your argument is it is the human being that does the killing not the gun or the vehicle. It's what we are good at.

Cheers

Ian

JohnRoberts said:

So in the margin it could have an impact but would not be a complete solution.

Click to expand...

We're human. We're fallible. We desire some measure of freedom. A complete solution is likely impossible. But we should probably try to get as close to "complete" as possible - within reason. (<- applies to any issue really)

JohnRoberts said:

PS: I propose instead of depriving law abiding citizens from gun ownership, we take guns away from street criminals in Chicago. Last I checked they were already illegal so we don't need a new law for that.

Click to expand...

Right. But the reason we're having this conversation now is because someone bought weapons legally, not acquired them illegally. So the question should be whether or not depriving more people of (legal) gun (ownership) helps or not. The answer to that question should probably be based on statistics, answering the following two questions;

- How many deaths (%) stem from legally owned guns?
- How many of those type of owners would not have acquired weapons had they been illegal?

As for Chicago, I really think that's a red herring. First of all, in order for them to get their hands on weapons those weapons need to be created and supplied. In I bet most cases they're legal to begin with. So at some point someone breaks the law (duh), so the question is if starting at the source solves the problem. It seems like it would.

Secondly, I really am bothered by the fascination of Chicago violence by conservatives. It's like any time the discussion lands on gun ownership or black people being shot by cops we have to talk about Chicago. Surely this isn't a coincidence. It really seems like it's about more than just what it is on the surface..

JohnRoberts said:

High profile single shooter events get disproportionate media attention . Chicago just passed its 500th gun homicide for the year. Now IMO that deserves more media  attention., and remedy (enforcement, not new laws).

Click to expand...

I don't entirely disagree. Would you say the same thing about terrorist acts as well? That we're disproportionately focusing on events such as 9/11, the London/Madrid attacks, uses of cars or trucks to attack individuals... etc....?

scott2000 said:

But we still do it and they still kill....... lots if not more.....

I miss driver's education in school..... Crazy how many people don't know the laws of the road no too far apart from RED, Yellow,Green....Stop...



I think you are right and agree, we could keep the subject on guns/control because that's what we are discussing. Outside of references,  We could address the other points as people deem them appropriate in other threads perhaps? This would make for easier references to the different topics......imo...

or not....lol

Click to expand...

My point wasn't that something needs to be done to improve safety in traffic for example, it was just that it's in my opinion a non-starter to juxtapose gun ownership to deaths by car, because the intended use of the two objects are vastly different. 

ruffrecords said:

Tell that to the victims of the recent terror attacks in the UK and Europe. Tell that to the victims of 9/11

Click to expand...

Tell them what? That the airplanes used on 9/11 were designed and manufactured with the intent to cause bodily harm? You're joking, right?

ruffrecords said:

The obvious fallacy in your argument is it is the human being that does the killing not the gun or the vehicle. It's what we are good at.

Cheers

Ian

Click to expand...

Are you saying my argument is that humans do the killing and not the object, and that that's my fallacy? I'm confused about what your point is at this, uh, point....

I'm saying that some objects are created with the intent of causing injury or destruction, while others are not. Just because many objects can cause injury/destruction doesn't mean they should all be made illegal. If the argument by those who are pro-gun ownership is that we can't ban guns completely because cars also kill people then I think there is no stopping us from extending the argument in either direction:

- Why stop at keeping guns as legal as they are today and not also increase the range of weapons allowed? If the argument is that guns aren't the problem because "cars" then why not allow surface-to-air missiles.... 'because cars'....? Same logic applied.

- If we do then restrict guns and the argument if that is done is that then other things that kill should be illegal too (cars) then why stop at cars? Certainly we'd make illegal not just switchblades but also kitchen knifes. Hammers. Baseball bats. Etc. Rocks.

See what I'm saying?

scott2000 said:

Wow..... the 90s were violent.......

Wonder what all the factors were that make the 90s stand out so much?????

Click to expand...

Miami Vice. Oh wait. That was the 80's.

mattiasNYC said:

I'm saying that some objects are created with the intent of causing injury or destruction, while others are not. Just because many objects can cause injury/destruction doesn't mean they should all be made illegal. If the argument by those who are pro-gun ownership is that we can't ban guns completely because cars also kill people then I think there is no stopping us from extending the argument in either direction:

Click to expand...

I know what you are saying. The point is is does not matter what the intent of the thing was when it was made. The point is what is actually DOES in the hands of humans. Cars are not made to kill but humans kill more people with cars than they do with weapons. You think we should ignore that fact?? Are you saying it is OK to kill someone with a car???

Cheers

Ian

ruffrecords said:

I know what you are saying. The point is is does not matter what the intent of the thing was when it was made. The point is what is actually DOES in the hands of humans. Cars are not made to kill but humans kill more people with cars than they do with weapons. You think we should ignore that fact?? Are you saying it is OK to kill someone with a car???

Cheers

Ian

Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea how you can get to the point of asking me if I think it's ok for someone to kill using a car. Either I'm so incredibly high that I can't remember having said that, or I'm hoping you're that high.

I'm saying that if we hypothetically get rid of all guns in society, save for those who actually need it to be productive, like hunters, then our society likely stands to see a net gain from that. We normally use guns for either productivity (hunting) or leisure (shooting on a range or such) or for violent purposes. So limiting our society's access to only cases where we need them for productivity affects us all mostly positively. I mean, it's really no big deal. If you are no longer allowed and able to go shoot on a range there are a myriad of other things you could do for leisure ranging from playing Yatzi to taking a dump.

However, if we get rid of cars to the same degree our society suffers negatively to a much higher degree. We use cars both for productivity and leisure of course, but a lot more for productivity than we do guns (for productivity). That's where the difference lie.

So the point I'm making is why the heck are we talking about cars? The discussion is about the second amendment. What do cars have to do with this? If you want to have a conversation about cars then by all means have a conversation about them. A car and a gun just aren't the same thing. They aren't meant to do the same thing.

Again, you ignore - for good reason (though probably not what you think) - the question I asked earlier: If the argument that cars are used in situations where more people are killed (in total) than guns justifies gun ownership, then why would you draw a line at all regarding just what weapons people should be allowed to own?

1: We should not make ownership of hand guns (pistols, revolvers) illegal because people using cars kill more people.
2: We should not make ownership of surface-to-air missiles illegal because people using cars kill more people.

Just tell me why 1 above would be true but not 2.

mattiasNYC said:

As for Chicago, I really think that's a red herring. First of all, in order for them to get their hands on weapons those weapons need to be created and supplied. In I bet most cases they're legal to begin with. So at some point someone breaks the law (duh), so the question is if starting at the source solves the problem. It seems like it would.

Click to expand...

It seems large and significant to be dismissed as a red herring in a discussion about guns.

Secondly, I really am bothered by the fascination of Chicago violence by conservatives. It's like any time the discussion lands on gun ownership or black people being shot by cops we have to talk about Chicago. Surely this isn't a coincidence. It really seems like it's about more than just what it is on the surface..

Click to expand...

again??? question the motives of people who don't agree with you (AKA identity politics).

Conservatives tend to think in terms of actual problem solving. I can't speak for conservatives, but speaking for myself I see the ongoing homicides in Chicago inexcusable.

There is a probably a connection between the politics of most crime riddled cities, and poverty and other circumstances but I haven't gone there yet.... Lets fix the elephant in the room (hows that for a metaphor) all the shooting deaths. We can't outlaw guns, but we can work to get them off the streets of not just Chicago. I use them because they are easy to look up stats.

Speaking of stats for a long time liberals argues that homicide rates are falling. bzzzt no longer. 
https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21716056-analysis-50-cities-economist-americas-murder-rate-rising-its-fastest

Jeff sessions is old school law and order and there is lots to argue about his policy, but I applaud his focus on gang related violence. It is the government's job to keep citizens safe from law breakers.

I don't entirely disagree. Would you say the same thing about terrorist acts as well? That we're disproportionately focusing on events such as 9/11, the London/Madrid attacks, uses of cars or trucks to attack individuals... etc....?

Click to expand...

This is often used to downplay the significance of terrorism (JV squad), and I agree we have pretty much escaped the bulk of the violence here. Terrorism is all about making objects on the TV screen appear scarier than they are, and media is complicit because it gets them ratings. Nobody wants to hear that the 50 shooting deaths in vegas is just a bad week for the shooting deaths from all major US cities combined.

JR 

JohnRoberts said:

It seems large and significant to be dismissed as a red herring in a discussion about guns.

Click to expand...

It's a red herring if we assume that the following is true:

- Chicago murders are committed using guns
- Getting rid of guns in Chicago makes people not use guns to commit murder
- We could get rid of guns in the US
- Chicago is in the US

See? People are talking about getting rid of or greatly restricting gun access in the US and the discussion is called a red herring because Chicago. That's ignoring that the proposition says Chicago's problems would also be solved or decreased at the same time.

And the other thing is that we all know why we're talking about this. We're talking about this now because of what happened in Vegas. So the converse question is how solving Chicago prevents Vegas from happening again... or Columbine et al.

JohnRoberts said:

again??? question the motives of people who don't agree with you (AKA identity politics).

Click to expand...

"identity politics". zzzzzzzzz

JohnRoberts said:

Conservatives tend to think in terms of actual problem solving.

Click to expand...

No, no they really don't. Unless you mean to tell me that conservative resistance against health care measures such as abortion or providing birth control or sex ed is in terms of "actual problem solving". I think it's pretty clear that it's almost entirely ideological resistance against those measures. So, no they don't tend to do that at all.

JohnRoberts said:

I can't speak for conservatives, but speaking for myself I see the ongoing homicides in Chicago inexcusable.

There is a probably a connection between the politics of most crime riddled cities, and poverty and other circumstances but I haven't gone there yet.... Lets fix the elephant in the room (hows that for a metaphor) all the shooting deaths. We can't outlaw guns, but we can work to get them off the streets of not just Chicago. I use them because they are easy to look up stats.

Click to expand...

Right. Wonder what the Vegas stats will look like for 2017....

JohnRoberts said:

Jeff sessions is old school law and order and there is lots to argue about his policy, but I applaud his focus on gang related violence. It is the government's job to keep citizens safe from law breakers.

Click to expand...

Where was the government during the concert in Vegas?

This is part of what people in the US are objecting to: There's a willingness by some Americans to have the government take action to prevent some deaths perpetrated by some people, yet when it's perpetrated by others that willingness is gone, and we're told to look elsewhere. I can't remember the last time the NRA stood up for a black man's right to be armed and not be shot on sight by police, yet I hear the NRA defend gun ownership as long as it's a white man shooting up a theater or school or whatnot.

You probably don't see it this way but this is really part of what some experience in the US. We all know what "Chicago" and "gang violence" really means.

mattiasNYC said:

I have absolutely no idea how you can get to the point of asking me if I think it's ok for someone to kill using a car. Either I'm so incredibly high that I can't remember having said that, or I'm hoping you're that high.

I'm saying that if we hypothetically get rid of all guns in society, save for those who actually need it to be productive, like hunters, then our society likely stands to see a net gain from that.

Click to expand...

Nope, another fallacious argument. The problem is not the guns its the people. All that would happen is that there would be an increase in other ways that people kill people. It does not matter what they use to do it. Just banning one thing they use to kill each other will only cause them to find another way of doing it. Like I said, the problem is the people. Most killings are committed by people who are for one reason or another wrong in the head. The most common cause of wrong headedness is drugs and alcohol - people do things they would not otherwise do when under their influence.  And nowadays there is radicalisation as well. How to remove those influences is the problem you have to solve.  You will save many more lives that way than by simply banning firearms.

Cheers

Ian

ruffrecords said:

Nope, another fallacious argument. The problem is not the guns its the people. All that would happen is that there would be an increase in other ways that people kill people. It does not matter what they use to do it. Just banning one thing they use to kill each other will only cause them to find another way of doing it. Like I said, the problem is the people. Most killings are committed by people who are for one reason or another wrong in the head. The most common cause of wrong headedness is drugs and alcohol - people do things they would not otherwise do when under their influence.  And nowadays there is radicalisation as well. How to remove those influences is the problem you have to solve.  You will save many more lives that way than by simply banning firearms.

Cheers

Ian

Click to expand...

Just answer me why we shouldn't allow citizens who today are allowed to own guns to own surface-to-air missiles. It's a very simple question. Just answer that please.

And when you do, just remember that it doesn't matter if those people own cars, 9mm guns or surface-to-air missiles, what matters if they intend to commit crimes.

Whenever you're ready. I'll wait.

scott2000 said:

Because your " ideology" is different, you expect it is worthy to dismiss in this manner?

This is somewhat disappointing to hear. :-\

Click to expand...

You're confusing me calling the basis for their opposition "ideology" with me disagreeing with or dismissing that ideology. Those are two different things. I claimed the former, not the latter.

If you think that conservatives aren't opposing those specific things because of their ideology and instead mostly do it for practical reasons (related to the actual issue), then I'd love to see examples of that.

scott2000 said:

Costs?

Click to expand...

Not that I've seen. Net costs are hardly lower.

scott2000 said:

Priceless.  Wonder where the stats are for this position ......... How many?

Click to expand...

How many what? Donuts?

So we are now debating whether getting rid of guns would significantly cut the amount of violent murders people commit in general.

Earlier on, John12ax7 pointed out there was (liberal) spin at the very beginning of the article.

Notice they start with the statement that more guns equals more murder.  But then cite data for firearm related homicides. Not the same thing.

Click to expand...

This is true.  The author didn't word that right. But if you click on the "2013 Study" link in the article the conclusion to the study is this:

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Click to expand...

Even with these findings there are variables. As Ian is arguing it is the person who kills not the weapon. So it might be that people who are aggressive and fearful in nature buy guns. And even if you took all those guns away from those people in those states, There would still be as many murders, because the people who owned the guns would use a knife or a car or poison or karate.

This is not completely impossible. I would have to say though, killing someone with a gun, for an average person, is one of the easiest ways to kill someone. Other types of killing take more planning or physical strength. Which brings up another question, How many of these murderers wanted to get away with the murder, and how many were just mentally ill and in such rage that they didn't care if they were caught... or planned suicide afterwards? More mentally ill people mean more murder by cars...so on and so forth.

I think I am leaning in the liberal direction here and believe the articles statement that more guns equal more murder. Just seems logical but that could be because I want to see it that way.

JohnRoberts said:

For people who feel strongly about this we do have a legal mechanism for repealing amendments (like the 2nd), so pursue that to do this properly.

Click to expand...

Many people are already perusing this but unfortunately like Paul G. pointed out, its not practical to expect to be able to take all the guns away from people who have them. The only thing I could think of is just to stop manufacturing guns for the public. If guns are confiscated in crimes and there is no license for them, they are destroyed. With no more guns to replace them, over time the amount of guns in America will decline.

More firearms leads to more firearm related homicides.  This seems true and has been well studied.  Not sure anyone disputes this.

But it's also the wrong question.  The real question is firearms vs total homicides or even violent crime in general. In this case more or less forearms doesn't make much difference.  Think there is data on my laptop which is out of commission at the moment.

I would say the real underlying problems in the US are mental health,  economics, and the idiotic from the start war on drugs.

violence in the 90's ?

The American crack epidemic was a surge of crack cocaine use in major cities across the United States between early 1980s and the early 1990s. This resulted in a number of social consequences, such as increasing crime and violence in American inner city neighborhoods, as well as a resulting backlash in the form of tough on crime policies.

Between 1984 and 1989, the homicide rate for black males aged 14 to 17 more than doubled, and the homicide rate for black males aged 18 to 24 increased nearly as much. During this period, the black community also experienced a 20–100% increase in fetal death rates, low birth-weight babies, weapons arrests, and the number of children in foster care. In 1996, approximately 60% of inmates incarcerated in the US were sentenced on drug charges. The United States remains the largest overall consumer of narcotics in the world as of 2014.

The reasons for these increases in crime were mostly because distribution for the drug to the end-user occurred mainly in low-income inner city neighborhoods.

i used to live close to East Palo Alto, the police scanner was hoppin, cops on foot chasing people over fences, not enuff german sheperds to go around>

Based on crime statistics, East Palo Alto was dubbed the Murder Capital of the World by the U.S. media in 1992. The city held this title only in 1992, after which, other cities took the lead in per capita murder rates, taking East Palo Alto's dubious title.



SAN FRANCISCO — Cursed by a flourishing drug trade and violent gang wars, the small Bay Area city of East Palo Alto recorded the highest murder rate in the nation during 1992.

Outpacing such perennial homicide leaders as Oakland and Washington, D.C., the city of 24,000 near Stanford University had 42 murders last year--about twice the number logged in 1991.

"It's not a shock, but it's very disappointing," homicide Detective Tom Alipio said Monday. "We'd certainly rather be known for something other than murder."

East Palo Alto's 42 killings are the equivalent of 175 slayings for every 100,000 residents. By comparison, Oakland had a record-setting 174 murders in 1992, but they amounted to a lower rate of 46 deaths per 100,000 residents. Washington, D.C.--which led the nation in murder rate in 1991--recorded 448 homicides last year, or 75 slayings per 100,000.

> I think gun ownership is stupid in this day and age

I had hoped for a history lesson, what the UK was doing in the mid 1700s that made it important to write guns into the US Constitution to get it passed.

In *much* of the US, owning a gun is far from stupid. I could supplement my meat supply; many many people here essentially live on hunting. (Remember, thin cold soil does not yield abundant crops.) I've had moose, deer, and turkey on my land, bear on both sides of me, porcupine under my porch and up my apple tree. (And dwarf squirrel hardly worth a shot.) There's permits and seasons (lottery for moose). Weekly column in the newspaper. There's expenses for guns and freezers. I'm not sure it really pays against factory beef. But a LOT of folks here do it.

FWIW: in the US, most gun deaths are old man suicides. The suicide rate echoes the local gun rate. It is not clear that reducing guns is the answer (though some data from Australia suggests a trend). Direct intervention with depressed old men is difficult.

I thought the next big class was men shooting their women, domestic violence. But I'm not finding that data. Availability plays into that. Again intervention is difficult.

Then the criminals, against the innocent and each other.

Mass shootings are way down the list.
______________________________
> stop manufacturing guns for the public

The US already has far more guns than it will ever need. Guns last forever. Without a mass movement to melting them down, we will always have guns.

Another option would be to halt AMMO production. Ammo goes bad over the decades and many gun fans "practice shoot" frequently. Guy here may shoot fifty 12-gauge on a weekend, apparently trying to hit his barn? Those "bump-stocks" can only be thrill-toys (for 99.9% of users). Let everybody do their lifetime buys (24 for home defense, 2,000 if you fear the Feds) and then cut all sales. But historically folks like the DuPonts have great political sway, ammo for military will be continued and will be diverted, and there are huge ammo factories all around the world who must keep their sales up.

mattiasNYC said:

Just answer me why we shouldn't allow citizens who today are allowed to own guns to own surface-to-air missiles. It's a very simple question. Just answer that please.

Click to expand...

Why? Why introduce a completely new element into our conversation?

And when you do, just remember that it doesn't matter if those people own cars, 9mm guns or surface-to-air missiles, what matters if they intend to commit crimes.

Click to expand...

I know that. That is what I said. Are you reading what I write? For the umptenth time, it is about the people not the things they use to kill each other with. Is that clear enough???

Whenever you're ready. I'll wait.

Click to expand...

Waiting over.

Cheers

Ian