Well strictly speaking a supermajority of the states could convene a Constitutional Convention, which legally could mandate the disbanding of the federal government. Whether the Fed would go along is another story.
BrainGlutton, you haven’t by any chance ever been rousted by the police? I have, and let me tell you being at the mercy of someone who considers themselves a noble and you a peasant is as bitterly humiliating as anything you’ll ever experience.
Freakenstein, before we go on, do you think that I should be allowed to own my shotgun and for that matter my several AR15s? I live in the Phoenix Metropolitan area if that helps in your analysis.
Frankly, I don’t know. Like I said, I don’t think I’m qualified to valuate such things even from face to face. I would catch obvious lunatics, but smart psychopaths would probably fool Me easily. However, from what You are writing, I take that You are not a smart psychopath.
But if You would live next to Me, I would rather see that You wouldn’t own several AR15s. What in the world are You doing with more than one?
If I would live in The U.S., I might Myself want to have a pistol or a hunting rifle, depending where I’m living. Provided that I pass the test, of course. And I believe that I would. I’m sure You believe that You would pass it easily too, so You shouldn’t have a reason to oppose evaluations. I don’t see anyone should oppose them, unless they think that they won’t pass themselves. Agree?
( And no, I’m not suggesting that people should spend thousands and thousand of dollars of their own money to psychologists to get a fifty dollar gun, like somebody claimed. The government should do the job, that’s why You pay taxes. )
But from Switzerland to other ‘free’ countries that can’t be conquered. What do You think about Somalia and Afghanistan? It’s a man’s world out there, and government don’t interfere much. A paradise on earth, isn’t it?
No doubt, but we must have police, and they must have both the authority and the power to arrest people in appropriate circumstances, and being arrested cannot be other than humiliating. It would not make the experience any less humiliating if you were armed at the time; and it might, in fact, make the arrest process more dangerous, to the police, to you, and to innocent bystanders.
You’re not a true DoL hero because You didn’t shoot them down, shame on You.
I think it would. If we ever reach the point where that is politically possible, Union-dissolutionists will already be in control of Congress.
BTW, please don’t call the federal government “the Fed,” that leads to confusion with the Federal Reserve.
OK so tell me about how they disarmed the public in japan. They started in the 1700’s when guns were first introduced. The Japanese was never armed, the criminals never had as many guns as we have here. IOW, they closed the barn door before the horses got out.
The UK experienced a decade of increased gun violence after their ban. I suppose thats a price you are willing to pay but it takes a long time for the guns to get strained out of the criminal population.
So show me where this gun ban worked ina way that didn’t turn law abiding civilians into victims while the cops ran around trying to scoop up all the guns from criminals?
Like I said before. Licensing and registration is the way to go.
It’s low.
Perhaps it’s because it is almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit in Switzerland. Or maybe it’s because one misdemeanor conviction bars you from even having a gun at home.
Switzerland has about half the number of guns per capita as the US, and about half the incidence of gun suicide.
Sources:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
Well, I wouldn’t think any other person or organization could give any better an opinion than you could. I’m just asking your opinion on the gun and whether you think normal folks, urban folks, should be allowed to have one.
I assure you I can only shoot one at a time with any accuracy.
That’s the good question I was hoping you would ask. It’s not like I have a pile of the same gun in preparation for a revolution. I bought my first one used preowned at a gun shop during the middle of the assault weapon ban in college. For some reason it was selling for about half of what it was worth and had a scope on it worth and extra $300 so I put it on a credit card. Later I wanted a shorter one just cause I thought it was cool, so I bought the one I wanted at retail, with a flat top so I could mount a scope that wasn’t too high like the first one I got and I used it for hunting and shot a javalina with it. Then I made friend with a guy who was into class 3 weapons and I just had to have a M16 to shoot for fun. Then as I got more into competitive shooting I wanted to shoot 3-gun competitions and had to get a different AR15 set up for that, then one with a 22 long rifle upper for cheaper practice and to shoot a .22 match that happens biweekly here, and now I’m thinking it might be good to set one up for prairie dog hunting which would be heavier with a higher power scope than any I have now. The older one’s I hardly ever shoot anymore, and are locked away in my gun safe, but I never felt any reason to sell them and they tend to go up in value. The AR15 really is one of the most versitile platforms out there, and mankind in general seems to never be satisfied with what they have already. So that’s why I have more than one. Good enough reasons?
Yes and no. If the evaluations were hard, and they led to less people owning guns and therefore more people voting to outlaw guns I would be against it. If a gun safety class were say given in high school followed by a test that led more people to enjoy and safely own guns, and vote to strengthen gun rights, then I would be for it.
I’m not overly familiar with the Somalia situation but I think Afghanistan has done a good job at avoiding being conquered by much more powerful nations, and I think small arms have a lot to do with that. I think they want to live somewhat backwards there but I don’t think guns are the reason why.
Are concealed carry permit linked to higher rates of gun crime?
In the US felons can’t have guns, nor can those with misdemeanor convictions of domestic violence. I can’t imagine a prior petty theft charge explains much of the difference.
But guns (both assault weapons and genuine assault rifles) are in a higher percentage of households in Switzerland. So do you really think the problem is the guns?
This is what Time had to say about it:
I’m finding conservative articles that say the UK Firearms Act of 1998 increased gun violence, and liberal articles saying – surprise! – the opposite. More plausibly, there aren’t enough gun murders in Britain to draw statistically significant conclusions:
[In the United Kingdom, annual firearm homicides total
2010: 27
2009: 18
2008: 32
2007: 22
2006: 51
2005: 41
2004: 52
2003: 41
2002: 31
2001: 41
1999: 45
1998: 33](http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom)
I’d say manufacturing controls are, ideally, the way to go, especially on bullets. It’s true there would be violent civil disobedience if guns were conficated, but if licensing and registration were enforced, I think it might be almost as bad. Executives at Colt might yell and curse if they had to cut production, but I don’t think they’d shoot up any police stations.
Much? No. Some? Yes. I can’t imagine that most violent criminals don’t start off with a misdemeanor.
It’s the guns plus the bullets. Since the ammo for Swiss military weapons kept at home is stored in an amory, those guns shouldn’t be included in your percentage of armed households.
Or what one Time analysis/opinion writer had to say about it.
Let’s see where this astoundingly insensitive quote, from your Time link, leads us:
Since there are 8 million people in Switzerland, that means there are less than 10 bullets per Swiss citizen per year.
How does that compare to the US? Well, the relevant trade organization, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, estimates that 10-12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced domestically each year, while billions more are imported. Sounds like roughly 15 billion divided by 300 million population, or about 50 bullets per American per year. This means that Americans are five times more bullet happy (or, depending on results, bullet sad), than the Swiss. More weapons in the US? Yes. More bullets shot in the US? Yes. More gun suicides. Yes. More gun homicides? Yes. More people learning the wrong lessons from Swiss gun policy? Obviously this last one isn’t so bad, but the answer, again, is yes.
Percent wise, how much?
.223 ammo is not outlawed. It’s only the militaries ammo that’s held at the armory. Were crime rates higher in Switzerland before when the military had the citizens store military’s ammo at home?
Assault rifles in a higher percentage of the populations households of the Swiss? YES! Just like I said. Maybe one of the keys to lesser crime is to spread the firearms and firearm education around better than we do in the USA. But hey if stripping the Bill of Rights is your go to answer for problems, why look further?
So what? It makes no more sense to shoot the tax collectors than to shoot the Army.
No, it started in the 1500s with Oda Nobunaga’s sword-hunt. So what?
This change happened in 2007.
In general, the only crime statistics to be trusted are for homicide, since changes in other rates may have more to do with crime reporting than incidence. And there are so few murders in Switzerland that it is hard to distinguish trends from statistical noise.
Gun suicide is more common there than gun homicide by a factor of about seven. That’s where I would look.
While I can’t find any statistics there newer than 2008, the trend is that Switzerland is gradually increasing gun controls while gun suicide gradually decreases:
The Bill of Rights, if taken literally, allows no infringement of gun rights. But hardly anyone, and certainly not the Supreme Court, takes it literally. Virtually all Americans believe some infringements should be allowed in what arms are covered, in who has the right, and in what places it should be exercised. Maybe you are OK with children bearing automatic weapons, on the White House tour, when the President is in residence. But if not, you are an infringer just like me, and we are exploring what infringements are best.
Ok, Kable, You are obviously trying to set Me up for some kind of gotcha. How about this: every damn gun or weapon in the world should be banned. Like You said, I’m the most qualified person to evaluate that, so act accordingly. :rolleyes:
Really, why You can’t understand what I have said over and over again? 
( Yes, I just realized how the smilies work, previously I’ve tried to drag them in :smack: )
OK, here We have something, ignorance fought. I thought that there’s only one type of AR15s. You have reasons that I understand up to a degree ( having Myself six bass guitars - regular four strings, one with piccolo strings, short scale, five string, six string, acoustic - all different for different purposes, although I actually need just three of them. So I could sell the other three, but dammit, somehow I just don’t want to… However they’re not that dangerous even in the hands of a criminal. If they were, I might keep just the regular one after I’ve been evaluated suitable… ).
But before anyone starts saying that I should shut up 'cause I don’t know enough about guns, I’ll repeat it once again. For Me it’s not so much about the guns itself, but lunatics getting those guns. And You probably have never fired a gun in a school, but still see Yourself qualified to discuss about school shootings, right? Same with space travel and balancing a country’s budget?
Now there’s a new line of thinking that I never thought to see: a gun control that actually increases the number of guns and armed people. You really are thinking out of the ammo box…
So You think Afghans are better off now than being conquered? Personally I’d rather be living in a conquered land than in the middle of a war. And note that being conquered doesn’t mean tyranny or oppression, sometimes it means peace and prosperity. There’s that grey area between perfect freedom ( aka anarchy ) and slavery. I’m there and I’m happy with it ( and so are all I know ).
( btw, web’s pretty awesome, here We are having a discussion while there’s nearly 9 000 kilometers ( 5 500 miles ) between Us. How cool it that? 
)
No real gotcha except that when it comes down to it, if you look at the numbers, handguns are responsible for the vast majority of both homicides and accidents, but the polls show an overwhelming majority of american’s are in favor of keeping handguns legal, so most gun control advocates are going after so called assault weapons as the low hanging fruit. It really is just a step in the direction of what they want which for many is a total ban and an end of our second amendment.
Yeah, it’s almost exactly like guitars, I desire them too. I have a Les Paul, I didn’t at all need a Stratocaster but I got one just cause it’s “cool” and I’m too lazy to plug in either so I just play my cheap accoustic, and I want to get a Gibson Hummingbird. And I suck at playing guitars. I tell myself at least I’m not into sports cars. FWIW I keep most of my guns in a safe, and my guitars in my living room.
I don’t think anyone want’s lunatics getting guns, but the problems are in deciding whose a lunatic. Almost nobody admits to it, and when there was talk of psychologists being able to decide who gets guns or not, then the trouble foreseen was that people who need psychiatric care would not get it because they wouldn’t want there guns taken away. So there are few easy answers that don’t lead to some unforeseen and potentially greater consequence.
Thanks. I do think gun safety should be taught more widely. I love shooting guns, and if used responsibly I think they are very safe, but there are a good number of shooters who are careless with them. As many guns are in this country, teaching everyone gun safety in school would probably save lives.
Not necessarily. I just think they are an example of a people with small arms that have held off huge foreign armies.
It’s pretty cool! I was in London and Germany over Christmas and took in a lot of museums when I was there. In doing so it really hit me that historically people have been overrunning and killing others very frequently since before civilization and I can’t think of any reason to think this has stopped. The message I came away with was “it sucks to be defenseless.”
Great, you are teling me that there were so few murders in Switzerland both before and after every home that had a full auto assault rifle also had 50 rounds of the military supplied ammo, besides their own ammo, that you can’t determine any trend. Thanks for proving my point. I could not have said it better.
Well certainly you wouldn’t want to keep looking at the data that proved my point, that might force you to change your opinion. Guns are good for suicide that’s a fact. I kind of think suicide is a persons business, and it seems using a gun is considerably more polite to society than is jumping in front of a train. Did you know in Japan where they don’t hardly have any guns, jumping in front of a train is so popular that in order to curb it they actually charge the family of the deceased for the clean up? How weird is that?
Yes, the accelerating slippery slope argument. You’re rights have already been infringed, so that proof and precedent that we can infringe them some more. That’s a good strategy you people have there.