"Country with enforced assault gun ownwership ..." Topic

and no mass shootings in Switzerland.

So what is the problem with the United States? Is it inanimate objects without free will that kill people?

YouTube link

Wolfhag

I'm hoping that's assault rifles, not assault guns.

I am hoping it's assault guns and not assault rifles.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Go big or go home.

As Paul Harvey used to say, here's the rest of the story….

link

That's because Switzerland has compulsory military service.

The regulations of the Swiss militia system stipulate that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammunition), or in an armory. Compulsory military service applies to all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily.

From link

And Chris beat me to it with a more complete article!

Jim

Mass shooting = people of the insane side

Because they don't have inner cities overrun by street gangs?

To paraphrase something Mad Magazine once said:
1770: The shooting of three people in Boston helps touch off the American Revolution.
2022: The shooting of three people in St Louis (or Detroit or NYC, etc.) is considered a slow Saturday night.

Also – the Swiss are well known to do what they told

The Swiss have a very homogenous society, unlike many others, which helps to keep strife down to a minimum, unlike the "benefits" of multiculturalism which in my opinion create a lot of it.

Of course, the drug trade and gangs create a lot of it too.

Because they actually enforce their laws and keep criminals in prison?

Ximenez +1

ColCampbell +1

I'm just picturing a nation with compulsory assault gun ownership laws. "Hey, buddy! Your Brummbar is blocking my driveway, can you please move it?"

They have a "well regulated militia" basically. Ownership is more regulated. They also have only 5 million people, can only own one gun at a time,I believe.
Higher standard of living than the US in most categories, less inequality and unrest. Racial issues are there but less obvious. Politically stable.
I have a friend who lived there for 30 years.
I cannot think of another country that compares to the US in size and socioeconomic conditions where gun ownership is common. Is there one?

Explain to me why a disagreement after a graduation leads to shooting someone. It is not insane people. What kind of disagreement would justify killing someone?

"The Swiss have a very homogenous society, unlike many others, which helps to keep strife down to a minimum, unlike the "benefits" of multiculturalism which in my opinion create a lot of it."

That's the funniest thing Thresher01 has every written. My sister married a Swiss and lives in Jura, near the French border. Switzerland isn't merely multicultural, it has three official languages and many people can't speak any of the others. You literally have a country whose people can't understand each other.

The French Swiss F*(&@#ing hate the German Swiss. I mean, like despise them. Not North vs. South in the U.S. Not Red Sox fan vs. Yankees fan. Like, if your kid wants to marry a German Swiss, you disown them.

Funny

Higher standard of living than the US in most categories, less inequality and unrest. Racial issues are there but less obvious. Politically stable.

Exactly.

It would seem that gun violence (& violence in general) seems to have a direct relationship to poverty & inequality. It's not the heterogeneous population or "multi-culturalism" that breeds it, but people that feel like they have no economic options or opportunities, that turn to crime (or vent their frustration gunning down people).

The US is a rich country, but with an increasing problem with wealth distribution -- it is increasingly being concentrated at the top, & the lower probably 2/3 of the population has not been enjoying the economic gains from the economy over the last 30 years, while everything (& I mean EVERYTHING) has gotten more expensive, so their statistically stagnant wages don't go as far as they did in say 1980.

As I have said before, I live in Ecuador. Some 80%of the population are Spanish speaking mestizos, with the other 20% being Afro-Ecuadorians, Indigenes, & "Blancos" like myself. Yet there is heterogeneity here as well: the Costas vs the Serranos. Gun violence here however is noticeably lower than the US, despite an ongoing gang war (which my wife & I missed seeing the start of last year). You can draw your own conclusions as to why.

Damon.

The guns are necessary; They keep the crazies with pikes in check (and, notably, there have been no reported workplace piking incidents in several hundred years, as they are rather hard to use indoors… ;-)

Explain to me why a disagreement after a graduation leads to shooting someone. It is not insane people. What kind of disagreement would justify killing someone?

If we have to explain it to you, you're obviously never going to be someone who shoots someone over a disagreement after a graduation!

Because they don't have inner cities overrun by street gangs?

Yep. If you look at crime stats and gun death stats in the US you will see that:

1. Almost 70% of gun deaths are suicide

2. 27% (or 90% of non-suicide deaths) are caused by illegal handguns used in drug-related gang shootings and associated crimes in major cities and some high drug addiction-rate rural areas. Moreover, if you look at the crime "heat maps" for where most gun crime happens, it's almost all located in high poverty, high drug addiction inner city neighborhoods.

3. The remaining 3% are various gun deaths that include accidents, as well as other crimes – including shotguns and rifles.

4. So-called "Assault rifles" are used in just a fraction of crimes, more people are kicked to death each year than are killed by "assault rifles"

5. High profile mass shootings at schools are actually very rare, for all the horrifying nature of the crimes and the media coverage. There have been 14 mass school shootings since 1999, with 169 people killed. To put this in context, in Chicago alone in 2021, there were 3,561 shooting incidents that resulted in 797 gun deaths and another 1,500 wounded. And Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the US. Perhaps the people committing these gun crimes buy their illegal guns from the same smugglers they buy their illegal drugs from???

So the violence in Chicago saw almost FIVE TIMES as many gun deaths in ONE YEAR than in the last 23 years of school shootings.

6. Why does the media talk instead about "school shootings" or "mass shootings?" It sounds scarier – a school shooting is any use or presence of a firearm at a school, even if nobody is killed. A "mass shooting" has been redefined to mean any incident where 4 or more people get shot. So their use of terminology games makes it seem like attacks on schools are more frequent than they really are.

Because they don't want to discuss Chicago and ALL the gun shootings there, since it is very inconvenient and doesn't fit their false narratives.

Chicago has sometimes been a war zone going back to Al Capone. It does not matter now that they have restrictive gun laws, since there are half a billion guns in the US, that horse left the barn years ago.
And there is a huge difference. The gangs don't shoot each other because they are black. They are at war over power and economics. These areas have their own culture and economy. No American Dream. They may shoot little kids as collateral damage, but not deliberately in schools or stores or places of worship.
The gang narrative and the hatred narrative, and the 18 year old crazy kid with the assault weapon in a school are different things. Guns are just a means to an end, tools.. if there were no guns they would probably have knives. But they all have guns and it's too late to change that, they can get them anywhere on the street. You don't hear about too many mass stabbings, although it can happens.

But….the school shootings with assault weapons are their own American nightmare. Too many rounds, big bullets hitting little bodies are almost always fatal with vital organs so close together. These kids were not doing anything to anybody, like in a gang war. No comparison works for me.

It's not just the horrific death of innocent groups of children or the numbers. It's also what it does to all of us, what it says about this country to the world. With our politics, we cannot even make a gesture. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Natural rights were the bottom line before anybody thought of a constitution. How we live up to that promise is the question.
I don't know the answer. I have used guns, am a gun owner. I have seen what happens on the street up close. And I still don't know what we can do to change it in the state we are in.

When you take morality out of schools and parents don't teach morality, you will find that people will view themselves and their needs as all that matters and they will make up their own morality. Broken homes, drug abuse and various other social ills, leads to a rise of mental illness and/or narcissistic/apathetic individualism.

Basically, the rise of violent crime has many causes; however, I would argue that one of those causes was a loosening of morality that happened in the immediate post-war period – the "just do it" crowd are now reaping the whirlwind and the policies of various failed politicians (both from the left and the right) have led to a United States of Insanity. People are more on edge and the Covid restrictions enacted by some states didn't help the mental health of teens.

Add to the above, the drug problem in the States is destroying what is left of America's big cities and the idea that crazy people should not be institutionalized and you have the makings of a perfect witches' brew of stupidity and homicidal rage.

"It is not insane people. What kind of disagreement would justify killing someone?"

It doesn't – unless you're insane.

Back to the OP. The irony is that Switzerland has so many weapons (still fewer per capita than the USA) and yet so little gun violence because it has a well regulated militia. Perhaps those concerned with the availability of weapons under the constitution could consider this.

Swampking, I agree about morality, the traditional family is less common, neighborhoods have lost their identity as cities gentrify and push people into the worst parts, church affiliation has dropped.

However, drug use and production has been a huge problem in rural states, like West Virgina. It is not just an urban problem, it happens I the rural areas, like moonshine before it. People are seeking escape from poverty and hopelessness, may turn to drugs wherever they are. As users and producers. We have all heard about meth labs blowing up in the woods.

This is not a problem in Switzerland.

Advocate, I would argue that the 2nd amendment has been applied in ways never imagined or intended by the authors.

So-called "Assault rifles" are used in just a fraction of crimes, more people are kicked to death each year than are killed by "assault rifles"

I wonder who thinks up ridiculous statistical comparisons like this? Better, yet, I wonder who thinks these comparisons can withstand even the lightest logical scrutiny?

Advocate, I would argue that the 2nd amendment has been applied in ways never imagined or intended by the authors.

This isnt a 2nd Amendment issue, it's a matter of having laws in place for training, care, licensing, insurance etc. That could cut down on people with nothing to lose buying guns to indulge in power trips.

Also, a central gun registry would help track down who is losing and having their guns stolen and used in Chicago etc.

Another part of the puzzle is this law which blocks civil lawsuits against makers and dealers. If they could be held accountable like every other industry in the country, the issue would sort itself out.

link

Would you rather only the rich be able to afford arms with which to defend themselves?

And beer brewers should be held accountable for drunk drivers.

And spoon makers should be held accountable for fat people.

How about practicing personal responsibility without infringing upon my rights? I'm a law abiding citizen with over three decades of law enforcement service and wonder why I must suffer for the acts of criminals. I know! Let's get rid of "soft on crime judges," be hard on violent criminals and get services for those who suffer from mental health issues. Oh my, I just solved the problem.

If all the guns disappeared tomorrow, the rage, fear and hate would remain. You'd have less deaths, but what is causing these people to think that shooting up a school is their only option? This is an act of suicide and desperation with the shooters deciding that they will be infamous in death if they couldn't be relevant in life.

This isn't a simple issue. There are no simple answers. If people were serious we could come up with ways to at least alleviate the problem (this was a long term issue building, there is no one stop solution to magically fixing it- it will take time and society working on multiple aspects).

As a child in the 1970s, there was very easy access to guns where I lived. I live in a state with a strong hunting culture, and every kid I knew had a Father with a rifle or set of rifles. It wasn't uncommon for kids to bring their rifle to school for show and tell. I took hunter safety classes in an elementary school. No one thought of going to shoot up a school back then. My dad couldn't afford a safe or fancy rack so he had his rifle and shotgun in a bag in a closet. I had full access if I wanted. Never ever thought of using the gun to shoot up someplace. What changed between then and now?

As a gun owner, I think requiring training for gun owners is not out of the question. Despite going through hunter safety training as a kid, I never owned a gun until later in life myself, until my son decided to join a precision rifle team. Since he was under 18, I had to get up to speed so I could transport his rifles to matches (I lived in a different state at the time which had stricter rules). I went through a fantastic set of gun classes that emphasized safe gun handling, range rules, and how to properly handle and use a gun.

I would not be opposed to requiring these types of classes for all gun users. I see idiots at the range where I live at now (different state) and know they never received proper training. I want all gun owners to understand the same set of safety rules and handling etiquette.

I believe a waiting period of a few days to get a gun is acceptable, and answering a simple set of questions and training the seller to pick up on when people clearly want a gun to settle a score would be prudent. I can't think of a situation where I need a gun today, right now that makes sense.

3% of all gun deaths are by rifles (and that is all rifles- not just semi automatic black guns- which are not assault rifles, which used to have a pretty solid definition until people started using the term strictly to scare people). Technically I own a Mosin-Nagant and a Kar-98k- Those were weapons of war, but they hold only 5 rounds each, are bolt action, and wouldn't meet the definition of 'weapons of war' that everyone is throwing around today to define what is basically a semi-automatic rifle.

This is a complex issue, and the people we trust the least by polling- the media and our elected politicians, are going to come up with knee jerk solutions that neither fix the problem and pit us against one another more.

And still you will have people so desperate and filled with rage that they think that killing a lot of people in a suicidal death spree is their only resolution. Is there a way to fix that?

Why can't we the people push for relevant and meaningful change that will start to address these issues instead of going at each other's throats?

Au pas de Charge--You don't seem to understand the basis of the Bill of Rights. Those rights are granted by God, and not given to us by the government. We have those rights no matter which political party is in power.

I do think that we can require safety training before we could own a firearm, and the cost of the training would be part of the cost of the purchase. But the training should be given by private parties (such as already being done by NRA). It should be required to attend in person (no online). Pass/Fail--if you attend, then you Pass.

pzivh43 +1

I agree also with training. Beer brewers and spoon makers don't fit the argument. We don't let people drive cars, airplanes, trucks, etc without training. But those things still kill people sometimes. Imagine if we looked at those activities like we do guns. You wanna drive a car? Own a gun? Get some training.

Look at the per capita murder rates of cities like Baton Rouge, Kansas City, Baltimore, Memphis, East St. Louis, Birmingham. And Dayton, Ohio. You can't yell out "Chicago" all the time.

Many of the high per capita murder rates are in states with more guns. Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, Wyoming, Montana, etc,

Use the data, then figure out why. Forget politicians. We need research and commitment from regular Americans to understand what is really happening. Who and/or what stokes the anger? That's a good research topic start, IMO.

If all the guns disappeared tomorrow, the rage, fear and hate would remain. You'd have less deaths, but what is causing these people to think that shooting up a school is their only option?

I'm tempted to say I'd be happy with less deaths. However, I think it's an illustration that normal people go in and out of fits of rage. There are times when people are moved to violence and then regret it. We need to study the problem more. Didnt they recently lift the prohibitions against doing government paid for gun violence causes?

And still you will have people so desperate and filled with rage that they think that killing a lot of people in a suicidal death spree is their only resolution. Is there a way to fix that?

Presumably they'll have to resort to using their legs to kick people to death which might give responders more time to intervene before it becomes just another mass kicking event.

Why can't we the people push for relevant and meaningful change that will start to address these issues instead of going at each other's throats?

Just a guess here but probably because the gun Lobby/Makers/Merchants, the NRA and a handful of extremists are inflexible which in turn is creating a countermanding inflexibility.

Sometimes it is better to compromise than lose it all.

I wonder if the discipline of mandatory military service might be a factor.
Switzerland has had shooting incidents, just less than the states.

If someone gets really angry and loses their temper.
Having a gun to hand would be bad, right?
The messed up teenager.
Who hates those other teenagers who keep picking on him/ show him up / turned him down.
Without access to a gun, the most he's likely to do is punch someone on the nose.
With easy access to a rifle – he can kill several people.

The problem is easy access to guns.
What's that?
But…. Some other country…. ?
Sure that country might be somewhat different. But no guns would mean no shootings.
You can't get to that point from where you are now.
But you guys could reduce the problem by making it harder and slower to buy guns.
Less guns less immediately in the hands of the irresponsible or deranged.

Au pas de Charge--You don't seem to understand the basis of the Bill of Rights.

Oh?

Those rights are granted by God, and not given to us by the government. We have those rights no matter which political party is in power.

Just the Bill of Rights? Not the entire Constitution?

@pzivh43

"Au pas de Charge--You don't seem to understand the basis of the Bill of Rights. Those rights are granted by God, and not given to us by the government. We have those rights no matter which political party is in power."

The Bill of Rights was written by the government in charge at the time. With the help of some European philosophers. Or do you seriously think that Americans are a "Chosen People" like the Israelis think about themselves ?

I am a bit of a nihilist (I think). About the only god-given right is the right to protest, up to the point of death. Other "rights" are templates for making life a bit better for yourself and other people. A good way to live, but without a government organised police service, for example, who will actually stop someone stealing your food and belongings ? God ?

Or is my sarcasm detector faulty ?

I missed this:

Would you rather only the rich be able to afford arms with which to defend themselves?

Well, wealthier people are less likely to commit violent crime. Does having car insurance mean that only rich people can have cars? Should a moron with a chip on his shoulder be able to buy a gun to intimidate people he feels inadequate around? What's a criminal except a regular person who commits a crime? Or, do we believe that certain people are genetically predisposed to criminality?

How about practicing personal responsibility without infringing upon my rights?

That's a two way street.

I'm a law abiding citizen with over three decades of law enforcement service and wonder why I must suffer for the acts of criminals.

The real question is why are gun rights the only area where we dont suffer for the acts of criminals?

I know! Let's get rid of "soft on crime judges," be hard on violent criminals and get services for those who suffer from mental health issues.

Getting hard on violent criminals is a solution that is often too late.
Also, I agree some judges like that Wisconsin Kyle Rottenhouse judge are way to soft on violent criminals.

I'm just picturing a nation with compulsory assault gun ownership laws. "Hey, buddy! Your Brummbar is blocking my driveway, can you please move it?"

Certainly, if everybody is required to own an assault gun, then quite some effort would be needed to find parking lots for them. However, since assault guns are crew served weapons, it would be rather inefficient to require a full ownership for everyone – it would be more practical to require people to form "assault gun pools" (like car pools), with limits on how many people are allowed to pool for a single vehicle (say 4-5).

However, if there are only a few assault guns around, then there can be a lot more leeway allowed. Here is a picture of one of the few assault guns in my home town:

link

As for the Swiss, I am not aware of them having all that many assault guns in the first place. They bought a bunch of Hetzers in the 1940's, and kept them in use for a time, but have they obtained anything after that?

I get your point Griefbringer, but the language is changing and the "assault" term is shifting in terms of weapons, right or wrong. Similar to when Republicans started referring to the Democrat party, and then everyone did it. Words change, maybe the Republic party is next.

Most people don't know much about newer semi automatic weapons. I have not kept up.

As far as I know, terms "assault gun" (Sturmgeschutz) and "assault rifle" (Sturmgewehr) were first introduced in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's, respectively. Assault gun is generally considered to refer to turretless armoured fighting vehicle, whose main gun has a limited arc of traverse. Assault rifle typically refers to weapons firing "intermediate" cartridges (lighter than full sized rifle cartridges, heavier than pistol cartridges) in both automatic and semi-automatic roles.

"Assault weapon" on the other hand tends to be a more modern term originating from the United States, where it seems to be used variously, including several state legislations (which seem to define it variously).

As for the Swiss militiamen, while they are expected to hold their assault rifles at home, my understanding is that these rifles are actually issued by the government and remain government property (and are to be returned once person is no longer eligible for service), so no actual gun "ownership" is actually required. Having been to Switzerland a few times, it was not a rare sight to see militiamen travelling in trains with their uniforms and assault rifles. Didn't see any armoured fighting vehicles, though.

(For some extra confusion, in late WWII US Assault Gun platoons were supposed to be armed with M4 Shermans with 105 mm guns in rotating turrets…)

What sane person goes out and kills 4 people in a day?

What sane person goes out and kills 4 people in a day?

A sane person with a gun.

Sane people kill people and they're probably better shots than insane people.

"I agree also with training. Beer brewers and spoon makers don't fit the argument. We don't let people drive cars, airplanes, trucks, etc without training. But those things still kill people sometimes. Imagine if we looked at those activities like we do guns. You wanna drive a car? Own a gun? Get some training."

And that's where you got it backwards. Owning a gun is a right, driving a car or flying a plane is not within the Bill of Rights. "…shall not be infringed" doesn't give you the ability to add your special limits to it. As much damage as voting does to society by the uneducated and malevolent among us, they still have that right. The right to self defense is not something many of us are going to let you strip from us because of your feelings.

I do not support stripping away firearm rights. Children have had their rights stripped away. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. These are the starting points, I believe.

This is not about my feelings. It's about figuring out the issue. Nobody makes you own a gun anymore than drive a car. You have the right to do both. And everyone has the right to not be killed by either. It's reality. The Constitution is for everybody. Every right in it serves the founding principles of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Including the right to own a firearm.

If this were just about gun rights for forming a well regulated militia, it would be easy. Making common sense regulations into an attack on self defense makes no sense. We regulate many rights, like voting. More than just my right to own my firearm is at stake here. All my opinion. I am not attacking anyone. But I am looking at the issue. We are armed to the teeth. I think we are exercising these rights without any problem.

"…shall not be infringed" doesn't give you the ability to add your special limits to it.

This is propaganda and marketing speaking. Actually, if you read Scalia's opinion in Heller, it asserts that quite a bit of regulation and limitation is permitted.

As much damage as voting does to society by the uneducated and malevolent among us, they still have that right.

You can lose rights and rights have limitations both intrinsically and extrinsically.

The right to self defense is not something many of us are going to let you strip from us because of your feelings.

Can we assume the "you" you are referring to will use guns to defend their right to defend themselves?

Sometimes as much as I want to be sympathetic with gun rights, too often when those most interested in gun rights are the angry, the ignorant, the paranoid and the frightened makes me wonder if that group arent the worst demographic to own a gun.

For a Swiss militiaman to be issued an assault rifle by the government, to be kept for defence of his country, is not a right – it is a responsibility.

Also, the Swiss militia system is effectively a variant of conscript military system, and is not without controls. Upon reaching adulthood, there is physical and psychological testing to screen out those unfit for service. The basic training, where the rifles are issued out and training in their use provided, lasts over four months. After that, there is occasional follow-up training (perhaps three weeks at a time) and rifle range practice. This provides some opportunities for detecting those persons who should not be trusted to be issued weapons.

Also, the assigned rifle itself is pretty standard governmental issue one, and many of your peers probably have a similar one stored somewhere. It is not an expression or extension of personality, or something to play out power fantasies with.

Finally, there is likely a well-organised registry detailing how the rifles have been assigned.

"This is propaganda and marketing speaking. Actually, if you read Scalia's opinion in Heller, it asserts that quite a bit of regulation and limitation is permitted."

What about the men who wrote, debated and voted on that amendment? Is the original intent of no possible concern to you or do you want make me believe Anthony Scalia's opinion is somehow more valid?

"Sometimes as much as I want to be sympathetic with gun rights, too often when those most interested in gun rights are the angry, the ignorant, the paranoid and the frightened makes me wonder if that group arent the worst demographic to own a gun."

Being condescending doesn't give you a better argument. Your tone indicates you don't support that amendment and that's fine. But you aren't going to be the one who enforce the gun removal, you will be the guy sitting at home expecting other guys to go risk their lives disarming people.

Pardon me if I believe it is you who are frightened and are projecting.

Peninsular I share your view more than it may sound. But I know that a numbers of founders were concerned that the Constitution be adaptable to meet future circumstances.

That said, I do not want to change the amendment. There is no slippery slope, in my opinion. And it looks like the Supreme Court is about to rule on open carry. With perhaps half a billion guns in circulation here, I don't think owners and manufacturers have suffered, and there is no point in trying to get the horse back in the barn. The supply is endless for the foreseeable future.

I do want some balance via regulation. It is clear that self defense is not the primary use for firearms now.

Leave the amendment alone. But regulate firearms as you would driving, alcohol and all the others things that we regulate for safety because they can kill you.