OK, I agree with not-Kevin in theory, but seriously, what does the fact that 99% of ammunition has been confiscated since 2007 have to do with Hitler? In 2007, Hitler had been dead for 62 years. What were Switzerland’s policies on guns and ammunition in 1940 or so, when Hitler was invading Austria and Poland and the Sudetenland? It seems to me that that would be more relevant to the discussion than whatever has been going on there for the last decade.
More typical liberal BS. So ammunition is regulated and accounted for…. doesn’t change the fact that a criminal knows there’s a pretty good chance if he breaks in to someones home in Switzerland he’s going to get shot… which deters him from the crime in the first place.
If you truly think gun control works go live in Chicago… gun control capital of the world with a sky high murder rate. Or you can go live in Mexico, Iran or N.Korea where only the government has weapons. That seems to be working out great for those people.
Those “gun free zones” you liberals seem so proud of seem to be working great. It’s strange that psychopaths who illegally obtain their weapons always choose areas where honest citizens can’t defend themselves. No one decides to shoot up a police station, NRA meeting or gun club… they go to college campuses and other areas where guns are “forbidden” by a sign you hang on the door. Good job liberals!
The commenter is an uninformed liberal who just pulled this from Wikipedia. While ammunition is regulated and there is a right for the government to inspect the issued weapons and ammunition, in practice this is never done. (Did you know that if you have a Wifi network, the US Government can enter your home to inspect it at any time without a warrant?) In theory you can’t take ammo purchased on the range home, but nobody keeps track, and you can purchase ammunition for other purposes, such as hunting.
The low crime rate is primarily due to a closed society, especially when compared to the rest of Europe.
More inaccuracies: in 2007, ammo wasn’t confiscated. Prior to 2007, each household was required to stock government-owned and maintained ammo along with their government issued Sig assault rifle. This requirement was removed in 2007 under concerns of suicide.
And the picture is true, if you walk around Switzerland with a rifle, people will assume you’re on the way back from a military service event.
How gun control or lack thereof works for Switzerland is not really applicable to the US. Mainly because at a basic cultural level we are very different peoples. Flat out guns are inanimate objects and can not commit crimes on their own, however some gun control is perfectly reasonable. In my opinion basic hunting rifles and basic side arms should be available to anyone over the age of 18. Each state should have a militia overseen but not controlled by a combination of law enforcement and national guard and those militia members should have access to assault weapons and higher capacity automatic pistols, provided they train with them and can pass safety and competency exams done every year. Once people have served say 4 years on the militia they should be allowed to purchase their weapons and keep them, similar to the military. Concealed carry permits should be allowed for anyone who can pass a mental fitness test and safety test provided they legally may own a fire arm. Personally I think that would be far safer than the system in any state now and cut down on crime fairly well. All you get from extremists like the fuckos in the post are half assed theories and utter stupidity on both sides.
Do you know what blows? Going to class everyday and having to leave my sidearm in my vehicle parked off campus. I don’t want to get expelled from school. But here’s the thing, as a trained Marine Infantryman, I can’t protect myself, or my classmates, if shit happens on my campus. If anyone is around me outside of these areas, I will do what I’m best at.. And have you seen campus security? Fuck my life.
my classmate’s step-aunt makes $64 hourly on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 6 months but last month her pay check was $17484 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site… buzz14.com
To #3 who said “Mexico, Iran or N.Korea where only the government has weapons”
I can’t speak for Mexico (which is full of import American guns anyway) but I can assure you that crime rates in North Korea and Iran are far lower than in any given U.S state. There are no stats for North Korea because the tyrant dictatorship is so insular, however having visited the country on many occasions I can assure you that the streets are peaceful, safe and orderly (even if the people are repressed and brainwashed) – but there’s certainly no gun crime.
As for Iran, again, despite dictatorship and repression, the situation is mostly stable. It has the 3rd lowest homicide rate in the Middle East and in terms of the risk of being shot, is comparably more safe than living in Hawaii.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m no liberal, and I’m not anti-American but I’m no gun slinging yokel either. I’m British -and rather conservative, but passionately despise neo-Cons who seem to believe we should all be sitting on rocking chairs on our porches clinging a shotgun in order to bring crime down.
Nobody’s trying to take away guns, so we can drop the whole “unarmed, helpless civilian” argument. They just want regulations concerning background checks (the VT and Santa Monica shooters legally purchased guns with a history of mental illness) and assault rifles. Unless you live next to the Taliban, I think you’ll be ok without an assault rifle.
To the clown who said crime is lower in North Korea and Iran: That’s cute. Even if that was true, the government is just as likely to shoot you for disagreeing with them. Go move there if you think it is so safe…. not to mention crime statistics coming from the tyrannical government may not be the most reliable. Laugh.
The gun control debate is not about people vs. people or crime rates, honestly. Even with no guns, if someone wanted to kill someone bad enough, they would.
The debate is about the loss of freedom, the government controlling the citizens with little or no means of suppressing government control to decide what they want to enforce, and the lack of fear the government should have of its people. Once the government has no fear because the people cannot revolt in any way, the government can act however they choose. By keeping our arms, we can, in effect, revolt and overthrow the government at any time should we choose to organize and do so. While violence is typically not the answer, sometimes the threat of violence or the knowledge of power is enough to keep people in check.
@Commonsense, a government brutalising its people has nothing to do with the safety of gun ownership. The point you were trying to make is that Iran and N.Korea are unsafe because nobody owns guns, but the examples you gave of how those places are ‘unsafe’ are due to government tyranny, nothing to do with gun ownership and public homicide rates.
It’s like saying that it’s dangerous to live in the French Alps, because you might slip down a mountain and die – but it would be perfectly safe if guns were legal.
Yanno why the 2nd amendment was written? It has pretty much nothing to do with gun crime, you know. It has to do with the citizen’s ability to shake of government tyranny should the need arise.
It’s a lot easier to get rid of a corrupt and tyrannical government if you can storm the gates. (Note that this is a last resort and I am NOT saying that this is something that should happen in the US at the moment, I’m merely pointing out the fallacy of your saying that government tyranny has nothing to do with gun laws)
Maybe, if we weren’t constantly trying to tell certain people they are undesirable simply because of skin color, and actually give them jobs so that they can support their families, we might have less gun crime. Maybe.
Maybe, if we could stop the flow of AMERICAN GUNS south of the border to Mexico, it might actually help in the drug war and lessen the Mexican drug cartel’s stranglehold on us all. Maybe.
Maybe, if we could get that racism monkey off our collective backs we might have more sense then to think we can simply shoot someone just because we don’t like them. Maybe.
How nice of you to insult my intelligence because I don’t agree with the concept of democracy being sustained by firearm ownership. In Europe, we’ve built stable society without firearms just fine. The fact is, 10,000 annual homicides in the United States are due to gun usage. 10,000 people, every year – just think about that for a second. 10,000 lives.
It’s not about ‘scary guns’ or ‘protecting freedoms’ – it’s about the fact there are far too many firearms in the hands of those who can’t be trusted with them. Gun CONTROL is, and always will be a sensible thing.
The armed citizens of the United States outnumber the active military by a minimum of 25:1 (although the number is probably closer to 100:1). Up until 2006 (thanks a lot, Bush!), it was illegal for the Federal Government to use the military against the US citizens for the purpose of protecting the government, so the idea of it is still fairly new. Asking someone to fire upon his/her family and the citizens of the country he/she has chosen to protect in order to protect a government that he/she may or may not agree with would be a huge task that I doubt many would choose to do. So, I really don’t think I underestimate the power of armed citizens.