If your aim is to make our country the laughing stock of the world, it’s magnificent. Sure, we’re towards the bottom in international comparisons of pointy-headed math knowledge, but nobody can beat our children when it comes to telling a 45 from a 22.
Will the kids get to shoot at targets in the shape of a human being, like in those Texas concealed carry classes?
There’s a disciplinary school about two miles from here. I’ll bet a lot of the boys will find this their favorite class.
Cool!
I wouldn’t care so much about firearm identification but with 300 million guns in the country I think it would be good if every kid knew basic gun safety. Is that really such a bad idea?
I don’t care much either way. What kind of target does the Swiss army shoot at?
Tough call, do you think disciplinary problem students need more or less training on gun safety?
You have a clever idea. But whose basic gun safety principles will apply? The National Shooting Sports Association’s? Or those of the American Academy of Pediatrics? You are presuming something like the former, but if the state mandates this for my district, it will be the latter.
Where there’s comprehensive sex education, expect abstinence-only gun education. And in abstinence-only sex education districts, expect comprehensive gun education.
Which brings us back to the part about the US being a laughing stock.
Heck, I can picture a whole “separate but equal” kerfuffle, where rural areas get good gun education while nobody wants to to teach the same to city kids, on the perception the latter doesn’t need it and shouldn’t have it. There could even be a good ol’ racial angle to it, too.
Pretty sure that would be me. In the Pit thread, I related how I use Everclear as a solvent for making some quick and easy herbal extracts, because the alcohol content is so high.
The procedure is this, in the case of ginseng. Grind the ginseng as much as possible, depending on your source. Pour into a clean bottle, with some Everclear, and let it sit for a long, long time. Weeks, sometimes. Decant the results, add about a third or so of the volume as distilled water. Warm, or allow to sit open until as much of the alcohol as possible evaporates, leaving the extract dissolved in the remaining water.
Please note the alcohol removal procedure. If i wanted to drink, I’d simply drink, the point of the exercise is ginseng extract, not ginseng flavored booze.
The result can be thought of as a form of Viagra, sorta, kinda. As far as I know, medical science isn’t definitive on that, it may be an entirely psychological placebo effect. But I don’t care, and neither does she.
Need I point out that the OP’s estimation of my opinions on either subject is no better informed than you might expect?
The fact that you don’t have government issued cheese in your fridge doesn’t mean you don’t have cheese at all.
People are free to purchase ammo in Switzerland, what they quit doing was issuing a set box that had to be tracked and accounted for. It was the cost of that accounting that caused the change.
From what I read, this was a gun control measure:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&refer=&sid=aMKldtonnQMU#
The 2007 change didn’t modify the rules on buying bullets. Instead, it eliminated the rule forcing militia members to keep bullets in their homes, whether they wanted to or not.
P.S. Now I believe they would have to pay for bullets, so somewhat fewer will have them.
They weren’t allowed to shoot the bullets the government gave them, they just had to keep them but your are correct with the motivation.
Note although, as noted in your linked article that even outside of military arms they are #4 as far as civilian ownership of firearms. Yet they have one of the lowest homicide rates in Europe and a similar suicide rate to the UK which has very strong gun control. If the issue was purely the physical presence of firearms that wouldn’t be true.
But I don’t want to dirty this thread, I was just correcting an error. The Swiss are free to purchase ammunition.
Could it be the training that makes the difference?
Who knows but Finland has universal male conscription, a higher civilian firearms ownership rate then the Swiss and also have a higher homicide and suicide rate. I assume there are multiple causes and multiple fronts that need to be worked if saving lives is your main goal.
This is why I keep asking for some form of evidence that there is a correlation between civilian ownership of firearms and homicide rates (or even suicide rates).
That is the only reason I participate in these debates, I want someone to give me evidence that by supporting gun control something positive will happen.
It seems that most people who push for it based it on some utterly non-existent data or false data or purely out of a “sunk cost fallacy” Where we just pass more gun laws because that is what we did in the past despite evidence that it does nothing to prevent the death but only serves to shift the body of the electorate to the right in subsequent elections.
But if you have evidence I am all ears, rally me to your cause!
IMHO even a complete ban would mostly do what it did do with alcohol or the drug war, produce an even larger underground economy where people lack access to normal dispute resolution channels (e.g. contracts, laws, courts) and thus use violence to protect their financial interests and disputes.
I will concede that if you personally find firearm suicides morally worse than hanging or drug suicides that may be justification in your world view.
PS, to clarify and to avoid a dozen straw-man argument posts: My world view would be to try public education, improve access to mental health etc…all of which becomes exponentially more difficult the farther right the legislature moves. I did grow up shooting and I was forced to carry a firearm for personal protection for a very brief time, I am very very very happy that time period is in the past. While I understand the thinking of the founding fathers I don’t think the 2nd amendment is 100% needed for the country to survive. I do not believe there is any evidence that for the vast majority of people, being armed will increase their safety. However they also tend to be safe and law abiding so I don’t wish to expend all my political capitol forcing my beliefs on them. I do get ultra frustrated when “my side” makes gross factual errors and parrots bad data, it helps cement the other sides position just as cries that “Obama is a Muslin” from the fringe right helps strengthen the bond between those on the left.
When last I lived in the US which was, holy crap, nearly two decades ago, you couldn’t buy booze on a Sunday from supermarkets or some such nonsense, although I think even that’s finally been repealed.
That’s a noteworthy “as long as” - open container laws are another restriction on alcohol use.
Yup. Since humans are inherently responsible, we want laws that will mitigate the worst excesses of human behavior without unduly restricting our rights. We’ve got DUI checkpoints these days; a few sensible restrictions and checks on gun sales, ownership and usage are not the end of the world.
Of course, with emotions running high on both sides of the equation and with an extremely influential lobbying group involved, “sensible” ain’t gonna happen.
Abstinence isn’t training. I’m proposing safety rules like these:
I would expect the above safety rules to better model what is used by the Swiss than the abstinence only education.
I would expect abstinence only gun education to be about as effective as abstinence only sex education.
So in principle you are of the opinion that in a free country, potentially lethal items should be kept legal, even if their benefits are recreational and likely psychological?
I don’t think that’s a realistic function for Great Debates. Getting out of (or into) the gun culture would require a paradigm shift.
Being in or out of the gun culture isn’t exactly the same as changing your views on whether the earth goes around the sun, as in my last link. The main difference, however, isn’t that guns are culture and astronomy is science. It’s that owning physical guns, or voluntarily choosing to not own them, influences what evidence one respects.
As a small piece of evidence that I’m not here to rally you to a new cause – radical cynicism – here’s a story from yesterday’s New York Times that goes against what I just wrote:
Wait…showing me that your position has merit and will do good if you get your way isn’t an appropriate function of a debate section of a message board centered around knowledge and truth?
But thank you for admitting your view on gun control is mostly a product of culture conflict than a response to crime and science.