So much for gun control.

[Gelion]

In the case of Switzerland it is so because everyone takes a gun with them from the military and it is supposed to be kept "until the time comes".

 

[Bugfatty300]

In the case of Switzerland it is so because everyone takes a gun with them from the military and it is supposed to be kept "until the time comes".

Why do they need assault rifles? Who is going to invade them in this day's age? France? Italy? Not very likely. If the Swiss citizenry can have military issued machine guns to fend off "invaders" then why can't I?

 

[IglooDame]

In my experience, at least in the US, the people who are most rabid about preserving gun rights to protect themselves from the government are often the same people who believe that it's ok for the government to spy on its citizens. Ironically, the right to own guns would be useless as a protection measure without the right to free communication and privacy. People on the left and the right would be safer from tyranny if they realised that all the amendments in the bill of rights are there for our protection. This does not exclude the second amendment, but does not refer exclusively to the second amendment either.

On the gun forums I attend, there's (very) roughly a 50-50 split between what I call the drink-the-koolaid Republicans and the libertarian conservatives.

Not a statistically valid sample (I wonder if small-government conservatives are more likely to be on the internet than social conservatives?) but we're talking a sample size of a hundred or so people at least.

 

[Little Raven]

Not a statistically valid sample (I wonder if small-government conservatives are more likely to be on the internet than social conservatives?) but we're talking a sample size of a hundred or so people at least.

I suspect that social conservatives are one of the least likely demographics to be online in force, but I admit I have no data to back that suspicion up right now.

However, polling suggests that libertarian conservatives remain, as always, a fringe movement. Social conservatives, by contrast, are on a roll.

 

[VoodooAce]

Crime itself is more a result of poverty than it is the availability of guns.

Still, drop me into a post office once with a long, sharp knife and then again with an assault rifle (or any gun whatsoever), and tell me to take out as many people as I can.

Anybody willing to bet on me with the knife? Heck no. You'll all bet on the 'me' with the gun, because common sense dicates that I'll almost always get more with a gun.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, it was written in a different time, for a different time. The Founding Fathers (most of them) were wary of a standing army. We no longer have the need for militias because, unlike at the time the Bill of Rights was written, we now have a standing army. The day of the Minuteman has long past.

This is an argument I no longer bother to make, however. There is no winning in the current day and age. Our time will come, but I fear its many years (and mass murders) down the road.

All I can do, when some lady busts out a gat and mows some people down is shake my head and thank the 2nd Amendment guys.....who deserve a large portion of the blame.

 

[IglooDame]

Crime itself is more a result of poverty than it is the availability of guns.

Still, drop me into a post office once with a long, sharp knife and then again with an assault rifle (or any gun whatsoever), and tell me to take out as many people as I can.

Anybody willing to bet on me with the knife? Heck no. You'll all bet on the 'me' with the gun, because common sense dicates that I'll almost always get more with a gun.

As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, it was written in a different time, for a different time. The Founding Fathers (most of them) were wary of a standing army. We no longer have the need for militias because, unlike at the time the Bill of Rights was written, we now have a standing army. The day of the Minuteman has long past.

This is an argument I no longer bother to make, however. There is no winning in the current day and age. Our time will come, but I fear its many years (and mass murders) down the road.

All I can do, when some lady busts out a gat and mows some people down is shake my head and thank the 2nd Amendment guys.....who deserve a large portion of the blame.

So if the mass murders are inevitable, I gather you support more lax (I'd say liberal, but one can take entirely opposite meanings of it in this context) concealed-carry laws in the meantime?

And presumably you also believe that illegal drug users are contributing to terrorism...

 

[Gelion]

Why do they need assault rifles? Who is going to invade them in this day's age? France? Italy? Not very likely. If the Swiss citizenry can have military issued machine guns to fend off "invaders" then why can't I?

Its the law in Switzerland. They want to be prepared. Furthermore I'm not pro- or against guns in this debate yet. So far I think you can..... but not RPGs and other "offence" weaponry.

 

[VoodooAce]

GUN QUESTOIN:

I've been looking for years and years for the answer to this question.

About ten years ago I read a statistic that an overwhelmingly large parcentage of the weapons used in gun crimes in the US are committed with guns that were, originally, bought legally here in the US. Whether they be stolen from the original owner, bought from them or by a third party, or used by the original purchaser themselves.

Where can I get this information?

To me it makes sense. I mean, we don't import guns here, lol. We export them. The pro gun side would have you believe that criminals smuggle their guns in from somewhere else so law abiding citizens need access to guns to protect themselves.

 

[skadistic]

GUN QUESTOIN:

To me it makes sense. I mean, we don't import guns here, lol. We export them. The pro gun side would have you believe that criminals smuggle their guns in from somewhere else so law abiding citizens need access to guns to protect themselves.

Guns like AKs and SMGs are imported by criminals. The U.S. doesn't make AKs. Tech 9s and MAC 10s are not sold in every gun shop.

 

[IglooDame]

GUN QUESTOIN:

I've been looking for years and years for the answer to this question.

About ten years ago I read a statistic that an overwhelmingly large parcentage of the weapons used in gun crimes in the US are committed with guns that were, originally, bought legally here in the US. Whether they be stolen from the original owner, bought from them or by a third party, or used by the original purchaser themselves.

Where can I get this information?

To me it makes sense. I mean, we don't import guns here, lol. We export them. The pro gun side would have you believe that criminals smuggle their guns in from somewhere else so law abiding citizens need access to guns to protect themselves.

Not only that, but according to a DoJ study here most illegally-owned guns originated in the same state/area that they were recovered in. Boston's Mayor Menino recently managed to embarass himself telling New Hampshire/Vermont/Maine that they need to toughen their gun laws because Boston was having a spike in gun-related crime; the New Hampshire Attorney General pointed out that well over half Boston's recovered crime guns originated in Massachusetts.

I can't speak for the pro gun side in general, but my take has always been that criminals are going to get them from somewhere; if they weren't produced domestically then they'd get smuggled in or manufactured in little home machine shops, much like the illegal drug trade happens right now.

 

[VoodooAce]

I can't speak for the pro gun side in general, but my take has always been that criminals are going to get them from somewhere; if they weren't produced domestically then they'd get smuggled in or manufactured in little home machine shops, much like the illegal drug trade happens right now.

Hhmmm. I wonder if we made our own cocaine and heroine domestically, rather than importing them, if drug use would go up or down?

 

[Bugfatty300]

To me it makes sense. I mean, we don't import guns here, lol. We export them. The pro gun side would have you believe that criminals smuggle their guns in from somewhere else so law abiding citizens need access to guns to protect themselves.

Actually most of my guns come from Eastern Europe. There is a huge market for imported guns in the US through the CAI. Mostly because they are cheaper.

Anyway, I wonder where gangs in Souther California got a hold of AK-47 assault rifles? They didn't buy them at their local pawn shop. Gun smuggling over the Mexican border is very lucrative.

Only 2% of crimes involved guns where the criminal bought the gun beforehand. This makes sense because most crimes are done with handguns and just about all places in the US require back ground checks on handgun purchases and thus a convicted criminal isn't going to try.

Another thing is that the guns used in crimes are often recycled by various criminals. For instance I saw a police documentry where a single submachine gun was linked to dozens of murders and crimes. For some reason I don't think that machine gun stolen from a good citizen who purchased it legally.

 

[Grisu]

Why do they need assault rifles? Who is going to invade them in this day's age? France? Italy? Not very likely. If the Swiss citizenry can have military issued machine guns to fend off "invaders" then why can't I?

because you're not in the army? if you ever use your assault rifle privately even in defense, you're in pretty serious trouble here....


oh, and btw, don't forget liechtenstein, I tell you they can't be trusted, surely they're up to something

 

[Leonel]

Anyway, I wonder where gangs in Souther California got a hold of AK-47 assault rifles? They didn't buy them at their local pawn shop. Gun smuggling over the Mexican border is very lucrative.

Well you can buy AK-47's here in the states from gunshops. BUT the big difference is that legal assault rifles are semi-automatic as required by law. I'm assuming that the assault rifles you're talking about are fully automatic and that's what makes them illegal. However there are websites that could tell people how to turn their semi-automatic AK-47 into a fully automatic one.

 

[IglooDame]

Hhmmm. I wonder if we made our own cocaine and heroine domestically, rather than importing them, if drug use would go up or down?

My guess is that the price might go down a bit, but it wouldn't matter much (drugs seem to be of somewhat inelastic demand), but better to ask one of our resident economics heavy hitters.

Meth labs make an interesting example, though. I understand that now you have to sign a log when purchasing Pseudoephedrine (cold medication), and can't buy more than a box at a time, all because meth labs use it as an ingredient. What do you do for guns, start licensing machining equipment and restricting access to steel and brass supplies?

 

[El_Machinae]

Hhmmm. I wonder if we made our own cocaine and heroine domestically, rather than importing them, if drug use would go up or down?

We have a similar situation with crystal meth, because it and pot are produced locally. And because there is a much greater supply of crystal meth (and its price is marked against cocaine and heroin), we have much greater problems with it.

But I wonder if crystal meth has hurt cocaine producers?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Well you can buy AK-47's here in the states from gunshops. BUT the big difference is that legal assault rifles are semi-automatic as required by law.

I know. I actually own one here in NC but You certainly can't buy or own one in California.

I'm assuming that the assault rifles you're talking about are fully automatic and that's what makes them illegal. However there are websites that could tell people how to turn their semi-automatic AK-47 into a fully automatic one.

Yeah that's what I meant.

Anyway, yes but such modification requires certain machining tools and experience in firearms modding. Maybe a piece of cake for your gun nut Randy Weaver types but I doubt your average criminal/gang banger is capable of doing it. Its much easier to buy one ilegally.

 

[jameson]

A little googling turned up that this is quite likely a case of different definitions. The rate quoted for Canada in the opening post is according to the Canadian definition, which is compared with the numer for the US according to the American definition.

Using the figures for New Zealand as the base here, converting the violent crime rate from the Canadian to the American definition leads to an actual Canadian violent crime rate of about 236 per 100,000 - less than half the American figure.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Deal with that fact rather than someones legal right to own a gun and we may just get somewere. It's not all that eazy to get a gun legally in the US depending on what state your in. Handguns can be extremely difficult to obtain with even a few minor charges on your record.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

Canadian violent crime rate of about 236 per 100,000 - less than half the American figure.

And what is the population differance between the two nations?