Don’t act too soon to dismiss. This analogy shows that having rifles is less dangerous than hand guns as the latter are more easily concealable, that requiring training helps reduce homicides from guns,
and requiring guns to be securely stored away is preferable to allowing them to be loaded and easily available to use.
Here are additional requirements in Swizrland:
I’m happy that the pro-gun folks will work with us to enact similar laws to those regarding guns in Switzerland.
Actually, what it shows is that law abiding citizens don’t run around killing each other for shits and giggles. That is the primary difference between the swiss situation and pretty much anywhere in the US. The swiss weapons are held by responsible citizens who follow the laws. In the US, the killings are (for a VERY large part) carried out by criminals, in illegal possesion of weapons, in the pursuit of their illegal activities. Fix the problems that cause criminal gangs to form and to have so much influence, and you will automatically reduce gun crime WITHOUT criminalizing gun owners or restricting constitutional rights.
We need to fix the problems that cause people to gravitate to violent crime rather than eliminate the tools they use to carry out those crimes.
If I read this the right way, you want nationwide gun control (possibly banning) but the criminals, gangs and insane spree killers would still have them.
That, and you scare me.
How do you espouse they come collect the guns that are either there:
You’re reading it wrong. He’s saying that gun control on a national level will do what gun control on a local level can’t - make it difficult for criminals to obtain guns, but that you need it on a local level to show that people want it on a national level. I’m not sure I agree with that last part, but I certainly agree with the first.
That means getting rid of the Second Amendment (which I am in favor of doing) because it has (correctly) been liberally construed by SCOTUS in favor of individual rights.
Bingo. RNTB has it: “He’s saying that gun control on a national level will do what gun control on a local level can’t - make it difficult for criminals to obtain guns, but that you need it on a local level to show that people want it on a national level, but that you need it on a local level to show that people want it on a national level.”
Basically cut gun deaths by cutting off the supply of guns. The cannot be done locally because guns move relatively freely throughout the USA. Nationally, however, supply can be greatly reduced, as can be seen in other nations. However, the USA does not wants this, as RNTB has pointed out.
So we can point to the Swiss as an example of why having more guns doesn’t lead to more crime, but we can’t use them as an example of how sensible gun control reduces crime. I got it.
Q) What do you call a person with a collection of guns and a high-capacity magazine before he shoots up a theater?
A) A law abiding citizen exercising his 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
Q) What do you call him after he shoots up a theater?
A) A criminal.
I wonder how much a different attitude accounts for the differential between cities. I am going to over simplify here but…
New Orleans has a pretty lax attitude about gang violence, thug murders thug and very little effort is made to solve the murder. Orleans Parish Police have a very low rate of clearance for homicides.
Houston my home, we tend to take all murders seriously. You kill someone anyone and you are likely to get the drip. Not that we don’t have a high murder rate but we clear most of our cases.
Is the general attitude in Chicago more “aw screw em they are just gangsters” or “murder is murder”?
"Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.
Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.
“Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.”
"In the right to bear arms debate, pro-gun Americans point to Switzerland, where almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime…
proof swiss men and women have M-57 rifles BEFORE training EVEN BEGINS:
“Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army’s M57 assault rifle. They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.”
source:
If this is an indication of “as far as you know” then you are disqualified & dismissed on the topic…feel free to rub your nose elswhere
your turn: now I will let you research the number of fatal assaults in the USA by reservists (or even enlisted soldiers) on other reservists as well as citizens…then you can explain why this is not replicated in Switzerland
i’m not sure why you’re being a taskmaster like this. we’ve well established Chicago’s policies are not working, and pretty well fleshed out why.
why wouldn’t you want to analyze what DOES work and WHY it works so maybe it can be used a model?
have a mod kill the thread, because every question in the OP has been addressed to fruition.
otherwise chill out…
eta:
as seen in the bricker/pizzaguy post, you can ask for whatever you want, but it’s an open forum. in this case, it’s not even hijack or off-topic. we’ve established chicago’s rules are ceremonious at best and do not prevent nor control anything. it is extremely pertinent to evaluate places with less restrictive gun laws and evaluate what they are doing that works, esp in the light of Chicago’s full-bore failure.
But that is all changing with the idea of multiculturalism…the recent influx of young men from predominately Muslim countries…do some research on the the rate of rapes and their direct connection to the new immigrants…if I recall, it is well over 90%.
The USA is very specific about who they let in:
"“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Now compare that to other developed countries who base immigration on skills and arrest records. We let Central Americans - virtual unknowns - wade / tunnel the border by the millions, then wonder why we have gangs like M-13 shooting up our cities.
Ok I will l ask the question we are all thinking, but we don’t dare mention - due to being PC:
Does race matter?
In Chicago, blacks are 33% of the population, yet they are 78% of the murders, of which they are over 90% black on black…similar ratios for Detroit (whose own police force advised tourist to stay away from Detroit this summer)…Philly…same
Why aren’t there similar ratios of whites in poor neighborhoods of Salt Lake City? Or Columbia SC? (flyers/ one -offs like Columbine / Aurora are not considered).
Very brilliant minds here…I know you are all aware of these facts, yet none of you mention them.