I've been really inspired by the discussions lately. :) I think we should do two things: 1) Examine why people don't shoot others; and 2) Examine other countries. Switzerland, for example, has more armed citizens than America yet has fewer crimes. Why? Well I think one reason is the smaller, more homogeneous population. Now are there law and specifically safe gun training that happens? I think so. So let's look at it. Really study it. Yes a well armed citizenry keeps the country safe. Now let's see if we can educate and make it even safer. :)
As a former Swiss resident (admittedly close to 25 years ago)...
All males are required to be in the military for a couple of years around age 20, with yearly refreshers of a couple of weeks every year until age 50. Each home must have a mini-arsenal; rifles, pistols, possibly grenades, etc. The idea is that should someone be fool enough to invade Switzerland, they'll literally have to do house to house battles, and expect significant guerilla action by well trained and likely well armed folk after.
The Swiss population is hardly homogeneous. This is a country that has three official languages (technically four, but Romananche was under 1% usage last I looked), with the areas for each language culturally similar to the main country for that language. French Switzerland and German Switzerland have many similarities, but also many differences. Think Yankees vs. American South where the rivalries a bit stronger than now, but nowhere near immediate pre-/post- Civil War days.
OMG THANK YOU SO MUCH!! This is thrilling to read and I appreciate the information! Especially about the diversity. That is fantastic! And I'm also thinking that I should have thought of that as I did in the back of my mind know about the many languages.
Thank you again for this wonderful information. I like the Swiss attitude. :) Though I think women should be involved too.
I'm extremely torn of late. I'm very anti-gun. I believe in very strong gun control. That said, I'm a single member of a high-risk demographic living in an area with a slightly higher -than-normal crime rate and find myself contemplating 1) jumping through the insane hoops for a CA concealed carry permit or 2) at least getting something for home defense.
(I do own 2 other guns, but I keep them dismantled and in remote storage since they're entirely of sentimental value, being my dad's Air Force sidearm and my grandfather's NYPD service revolver. I've also looked into getting them rendered functionless.)
I agree that a lot of gun ownership arguments are bound up in a fantasy of imagined competence. "If I was in Aurora/Columbine/Toronto/Jacksonville/etc with a gun I'd have been able to do something." I'm sorry, but chances that if you had been able to act, and had a sidearm, you would have been far more likely to injure an innocent than incapacitate or kill a heavily armored assailant in a crowd of hundreds of people while avoiding chemical irritants and automatic weapons fire
( ... )
Sorry I deleted my post; I accidentally replied specifically to you, when I meant to respond to the post overall!
But, I agree; the key in an active shooting situation is to get the fuck out, not stick around and make things more difficult for law enforcement or potentially cause more injuries/deaths. And, sadly, our current poster boy for packin' in self-defense is George Zimmerman. I'm not suggesting that all people would be as racist/ignorant/hot-headed as he is, but he is the example for how taking things into your own hands (or at least thinking you're doing so) is likely to go WAY wrong.
Also, I'm not necessarily for weapons-bans, but specifically assault weapons designed to spray zillions of rounds indiscriminately. We let the ban lapse, and Whooops! Thousand of Mexicans are being killed by guns pouring legally across the border! Whooops! Aurora shooter gets his hand on similar stuff legally. Everyone needs to realize that if his weapon hadn't jammed, so many more rounds could have been sprayed.
One of the worst things, legislatively, has been the lapse of the assault weapons ban. There is no reason on this earth anyone needs that stuff.
Additionally, as one column I read pointed out, we as Americans seem to be under this fantasy that the enormous number of people with guns or with access to guns has no relationship to the large number of gun-related crimes/violence. Why should we ever be surprised at situations like Aurora, if guns are easy to get? We need to, at the very least, face reality about this.
Finally, while I realize the 2nd amendment has been read as allowing US citizens to own guns, and I can live with that, I don't buy any notion that people are "safer" if they carry/own guns. There's just no evidence to support that--one may FEEL safer, but not a single one of these terrible Aurora-type events has been stopped by an armed citizen.
I see we have very different opinions about this, which is fine, but I'll just respond with 2 points:
1) I wasn't referring to the *possibility* of a person carrying a gun to stop personal crime or something like a robbery. (incidentally, I don't think people should be shot for robbery, but that's neither here nor there) I was referring to the idea that gun-carrying citizens could stop a mass shooting similar to Aurora from happening.
2) I support the assault weapons ban; if it wasn't as effective as it could have been, it's not the fault of the idea of banning such weapons, but obviously with enforcement/interpretation.
Note that the gun control debate is about to change significantly in the next 2-5 years. It's recently been reported that someone has made a working firearm via a 3-D printer...which is already generally available and at the part of the cycle where the next few years will find such rapidly reducing in price and becoming more available. So assume that in, say, 2020, anyone can print out all the guns they want.
A friend suggests the debate will turn to ammunition control, as he believes that will be much more difficult/dangerous to make using print methodology.
While possible...joecichlidJuly 31 2012, 00:05:09 UTC
The ability to make a functioning firearm that could safely fire live ammuntion is still not possible. The forces generated through the firing of ammunition are much higher than the plastics and resins used in the 3D printers can survive. The person firing such a weapon would be at much greater risk than anyone at the other end of it.
Thank you for the link...joecichlidJuly 31 2012, 01:02:28 UTC
Very interesting information. But the story left out some small details, mostly that only the lower part of the gun. Only the lower reciever part which is a lower stress portion, was made with the printer. Most of the parts were purchased from other companies
( ... )
As you have said, the laws are never going to have an effect on the criminals, they will only make things different/harder on those who follow the laws. One of the things that some of those that are in the anti-gun camp tend to overlook is there are already laws on the books for background checks, waiting periods and in some states countless hoops to jump through to get a firearm of any kind and even in some cases the ammunition to shoot them. I don't feel adding new laws will have any possitive effect on things, it is already illegal to kill someone be it with a gun, a knife, spork or what have you. In my opinion I feel the laws that are already on the books simply need to be enforced. In the background check there are several questions asking about the persons legal and mental history and if a person lies on that form it is illegal. Sadly nothing will ever stop a person bent on harming others from doing so no matter what tool they use. Any additional training will drive up the already high cost of gun ownership, that will be
( ... )
Comments 18
Reply
All males are required to be in the military for a couple of years around age 20, with yearly refreshers of a couple of weeks every year until age 50. Each home must have a mini-arsenal; rifles, pistols, possibly grenades, etc. The idea is that should someone be fool enough to invade Switzerland, they'll literally have to do house to house battles, and expect significant guerilla action by well trained and likely well armed folk after.
The Swiss population is hardly homogeneous. This is a country that has three official languages (technically four, but Romananche was under 1% usage last I looked), with the areas for each language culturally similar to the main country for that language. French Switzerland and German Switzerland have many similarities, but also many differences. Think Yankees vs. American South where the rivalries a bit stronger than now, but nowhere near immediate pre-/post- Civil War days.
Reply
Thank you again for this wonderful information. I like the Swiss attitude. :) Though I think women should be involved too.
Thanks again!
Reply
(I do own 2 other guns, but I keep them dismantled and in remote storage since they're entirely of sentimental value, being my dad's Air Force sidearm and my grandfather's NYPD service revolver. I've also looked into getting them rendered functionless.)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
But, I agree; the key in an active shooting situation is to get the fuck out, not stick around and make things more difficult for law enforcement or potentially cause more injuries/deaths. And, sadly, our current poster boy for packin' in self-defense is George Zimmerman. I'm not suggesting that all people would be as racist/ignorant/hot-headed as he is, but he is the example for how taking things into your own hands (or at least thinking you're doing so) is likely to go WAY wrong.
Also, I'm not necessarily for weapons-bans, but specifically assault weapons designed to spray zillions of rounds indiscriminately. We let the ban lapse, and Whooops! Thousand of Mexicans are being killed by guns pouring legally across the border! Whooops! Aurora shooter gets his hand on similar stuff legally. Everyone needs to realize that if his weapon hadn't jammed, so many more rounds could have been sprayed.
Reply
Additionally, as one column I read pointed out, we as Americans seem to be under this fantasy that the enormous number of people with guns or with access to guns has no relationship to the large number of gun-related crimes/violence. Why should we ever be surprised at situations like Aurora, if guns are easy to get? We need to, at the very least, face reality about this.
Finally, while I realize the 2nd amendment has been read as allowing US citizens to own guns, and I can live with that, I don't buy any notion that people are "safer" if they carry/own guns. There's just no evidence to support that--one may FEEL safer, but not a single one of these terrible Aurora-type events has been stopped by an armed citizen.
Reply
Reply
1) I wasn't referring to the *possibility* of a person carrying a gun to stop personal crime or something like a robbery. (incidentally, I don't think people should be shot for robbery, but that's neither here nor there) I was referring to the idea that gun-carrying citizens could stop a mass shooting similar to Aurora from happening.
2) I support the assault weapons ban; if it wasn't as effective as it could have been, it's not the fault of the idea of banning such weapons, but obviously with enforcement/interpretation.
Reply
A friend suggests the debate will turn to ammunition control, as he believes that will be much more difficult/dangerous to make using print methodology.
Reply
Reply
Claims a working pistol was printed that fired 200 rounds. And 3-D printing can include metals.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment