By your reasoning, Switzerland should be a madhouse of old-west style gunfights; I'll leave it to you to discover whether or not that is the case.
And my point was that relatively speaking, compared to it's neighbours with lower levels of gun ownership, Switzerland has very high levels of gun related deaths.
Overall gun death -. A figure that includes suicides, which are non-sequitur to the discussion of firearms-related attacks.
Try sorting by homicides and you'll see a completely different picture.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more.
You honestly think black powder, lead, and the literal hundreds of thousands of other consumer products that can be used to create explosive devices aren't conveniently available nationwide?
In that case, I've got a nice piece of real estate in NYC that spans the East River you're definitely going to want to invest in.
Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
Tell that to the families of the 200 people killed by Timothy McVeigh.
That's a straw man argument. It's a different situation because it's a different situation, not because of the nationality of the attackers or the tools involved.
That statement makes absolutely zero sense; I could say the same thing about your "27 shot in US vs 27 stabbed in China" example - two completely different situations, right?
It's still better than parroting "Guns don't kill people" when quite clearly being shot in the head by one would most likely result in dead with little chance to disarm an attacker form a distance or run away.
You know why that's such a popular argument? Because it's true, just like it's true that cars and knives and hammers and swords and any other inanimate object doesn't kill people - the individual wielding said inanimate object does.
Saying the opposite, that "guns kill people," works to absolve killers of responsibility by transferring the onus from the person to the tool. Hammers don't nail nails, carpenters with hammers do.
I'm not disputing that people kill in other ways. Guns are a tool that make it easier, like how a hammer and nails make it easier for a carpenter to build a house. I wouldn't take a hammer away from a carpenter, but I wouldn't let my kid run around smashing things with it either.
Right - and as I posited, a knife (or more specifically, boxcutter) apparently makes it easier to kill 3000+ people.
Or did, rather, before we started putting Air Marshalls who carry guns on our planes.
I do like the training idea. But I am very wary of the government establishing what is essentially a poll tax on a right again like they did with voting. How to do it without making it a burden to the poor would be an interesting discussion.
My wife had a great idea regarding that: reinstate the state militias*, and have everything run and regulated by private gun clubs. That way, everything stays nice and Constitutional, plus we get the added check-and-balance of fellow gun enthusiasts being able to keep an eye out for potentially dangerous behavior.
* Pre-emptive strike on the inevitable "we have police/soldiers" strawman - google the definition of "militia." You will learn that, by definition, armed individuals in the government's employ are disqualified from being considered part of a militia, by simple virtue of who their employer is.
And your statement means you're not familiar with the rules of gun safety and in no position to judge. In the Marine Corps, we were taught four rules of firearm safety.
Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
Keep the weapon on safe until you intend to shoot.
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to shoot.
I would suggest the Marines are mature enough to be allowed to own a gun.
I would suggest you read the entire thread before you criticize me, as I myself pointed out those very same rules much further up the page, as well as providing a link to Jeff Cooper's Wikipedia entry.
And so it would be fairly difficult if not impossible to outlaw or legally restrict 'hands'. Maybe semiautomatic and high capacity hands but we're still going to need hands.
We're talking about violent video games, not guns.
Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued.
Re: selective use of facts - the article refers to government issued ammunition. Waffentragschein (gun permit) holders can still purchase (and, therefore, possess) non-government issue ammunition.
Someone else contradicted this elsewhere by saying ammo can only be bought at ranges, but even if it isn't true, there is a world of difference between giving gun permits to trained members of the army reserve - people who've proven themselves to be of sound mind and body, among other qualities - and the US approach of letting anyone who isn't demonstrably insane or criminal buy as many as they'd like.
That is correct, but it is by no means a contradiction of what I said (i.e., I never specified where the ammo could be purchased/possessed).
Also, there is an exception for concealed carry permit holders.
The situation in Switzerland is not even remotely comparable to the US situation, which is one big reason why the don't have the homicide rate you do, or the frequent mass killings you do.
Indeed - the Swiss actually train their youths in proper firearms use and maintenance, and when someone does something bad with a gun, they hold the person responsible instead of blaming the tool.
Pot, meet kettle.
Please god let this obnoxious phrase pass into the history books.
Good luck convincing people to stop saying shit that warrants such a response.
Waffentragschein (gun permit) holders can still purchase (and, therefore, possess) non-government issue ammunition.
Is that actually true? My understanding was that ammunition for the service rifles (whether military full auto, or converted to civilian semi-auto) is only available for sale at the ranges, and must be used there after purchase.
Seems you are correct, per Wikipedia:
The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.
Certainly, though, there are exceptions for concealed-carry permit holders.
Switzerland issues fully automatic assault rifles (real assault rifles, not just "scary looking semi-autos") to every mentally competent male of military-eligible age.
Switzerland also requires that said mentally competent males of military-eligible age go through military boot camp and be part of their National Guard Reserve equivalent. Once their term of service is over, the automatic capability of the rifles is disabled.
Right - proving my point that the issue in America isn't the presence of firearms, but rather the lack of proper training requirements.
I'm curious, did you mean to miss my point entirely, or was this an incident of pure ignorance?
Yes, the military issues firearm to their militia. No one ion the us is talking about removing guns from out military.
If they want to own a gun, they must be in a security profession where it is needed, and under strict licensing guidelines.
You didn't even read the Wiki page, did you?
Sport shooting is one of the most popular sports in Switzerland. So, unless you honestly think that the majority of Swiss people are "security professionals," that concept doesn't hold water.
So, lets make it so ONLY people in them military can be issued a gun, and only people who are in a security field where one is determined to be needed, and licensing happens every few years, and is very strict.
Or, you know, we could do the smart thing and train people to use guns, instead of resorting to the typical kneejerk, emotional reaction that does more harm than good.
People who bring up the Swiss as proof the gun ownership in the US is safe are idiots.
People who can't make their argument without resorting to childish name calling and personal attacks have no valid argument to make.
...my family's Lorenz rifled musket [was] designed for military use. In fact, [it's] more powerful than an AR-15 (.54 caliber). The only difference is, these guns don't look "scary"; wood furniture instead of plastic, no pistol grip... This is all a knee-jerk reaction based solely upon looks, not capability.
Poor argument. Okay,.54 caliber may be considered "more powerful." However, I don't see killing 27 people with a muzzle-loader. Even the most chicken-shit would rush the guy while he reloaded.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
"...a trigger-identification system that prevents a gun from being fired by anyone other than its authorized user..."
Yeah, this was in Skyfall. Didn't realize it was actually practical. Or is it?
Neat, science-fictiony idea, but from a practical standpoint, all you're doing is adding a point of failure to a system of defense that must be extremely relialel to be effective... so no, not really practical.
The MFR simply makes the product.
The owner still carries full weight and responsibility for proper use and misuse.
Shouldnt have to have a law to state that.
With respect to guns, the proper, intended use of the product is to put holes into people.
Why should they be shielded from liability any more than tobacco companies?
A better question, for a supposedly free society, is why would we hold tobacco companies responsible for the stupidity of their customers?
What's next, are you going to advocate that GM and Jack Daniel's be held culpable for drunk driving accidents? 'Cuz that would be really, really stupid.
I'm glad guns are exempt -- many if not most product safety lawsuits are shining examples of why we need tort reform.
Really? What happened to those bedrock conservative principles of accountability and responsibility?
They exist, and exempting gun manufacturers from being responsible for what people do with their products is a perfect example of the philosophy.
Similarly, if a drunk driver hits you in traffic, you don't get to hold the manufacturer of the drunk's car accountable; you sue the drunk, as it was his responsibility to operate the vehicle in a safe and legal manner, not GM or Fords.
So would locking guns in a gun cabinet when not in use, as you're obligated to do.
But that relies on owner action.
These technologies are designed to remove owner action from the safety equation. It doesn't matter if the owner is responsible or not, since the technology doesn't care.
Any system that relies on personal-responsibility is unsafe, since individuals aren't reliable.
Any well designed system doesn't allow for individual actions to break the system.
Like how cars won't start if they detect alcohol on the driver's breath, right?
Or how plastic bags automatically shred themselves if they detect a child's head within them.
There's this concept, called "personal responsibility," that used to be the norm amongst humans; in general, the idea is that the onus of survival is on the individual, and if said individual is dumb enough to not follow proven safety guidelines, they take their lives into their own hands.
Remember a time when you could drive without a seatbelt on, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and all you had to worry about was getting your own dumb ass killed in a gruesome manner?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood but you said:
By your reasoning, Switzerland should be a madhouse of old-west style gunfights; I'll leave it to you to discover whether or not that is the case.
And my point was that relatively speaking, compared to it's neighbours with lower levels of gun ownership, Switzerland has very high levels of gun related deaths.
Overall gun death -. A figure that includes suicides, which are non-sequitur to the discussion of firearms-related attacks.
Try sorting by homicides and you'll see a completely different picture.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more.
You honestly think black powder, lead, and the literal hundreds of thousands of other consumer products that can be used to create explosive devices aren't conveniently available nationwide?
In that case, I've got a nice piece of real estate in NYC that spans the East River you're definitely going to want to invest in.
Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
Tell that to the families of the 200 people killed by Timothy McVeigh.
That's a straw man argument. It's a different situation because it's a different situation, not because of the nationality of the attackers or the tools involved.
That statement makes absolutely zero sense; I could say the same thing about your "27 shot in US vs 27 stabbed in China" example - two completely different situations, right?
It's still better than parroting "Guns don't kill people" when quite clearly being shot in the head by one would most likely result in dead with little chance to disarm an attacker form a distance or run away.
You know why that's such a popular argument? Because it's true, just like it's true that cars and knives and hammers and swords and any other inanimate object doesn't kill people - the individual wielding said inanimate object does.
Saying the opposite, that "guns kill people," works to absolve killers of responsibility by transferring the onus from the person to the tool. Hammers don't nail nails, carpenters with hammers do.
I'm not disputing that people kill in other ways. Guns are a tool that make it easier, like how a hammer and nails make it easier for a carpenter to build a house. I wouldn't take a hammer away from a carpenter, but I wouldn't let my kid run around smashing things with it either.
Right - and as I posited, a knife (or more specifically, boxcutter) apparently makes it easier to kill 3000+ people.
Or did, rather, before we started putting Air Marshalls who carry guns on our planes.
I do like the training idea. But I am very wary of the government establishing what is essentially a poll tax on a right again like they did with voting. How to do it without making it a burden to the poor would be an interesting discussion.
My wife had a great idea regarding that: reinstate the state militias*, and have everything run and regulated by private gun clubs. That way, everything stays nice and Constitutional, plus we get the added check-and-balance of fellow gun enthusiasts being able to keep an eye out for potentially dangerous behavior.
* Pre-emptive strike on the inevitable "we have police/soldiers" strawman - google the definition of "militia." You will learn that, by definition, armed individuals in the government's employ are disqualified from being considered part of a militia, by simple virtue of who their employer is.
And your statement means you're not familiar with the rules of gun safety and in no position to judge. In the Marine Corps, we were taught four rules of firearm safety. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded. Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. Keep the weapon on safe until you intend to shoot. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to shoot. I would suggest the Marines are mature enough to be allowed to own a gun.
I would suggest you read the entire thread before you criticize me, as I myself pointed out those very same rules much further up the page, as well as providing a link to Jeff Cooper's Wikipedia entry.
Regardless, thank you for your service.
And so it would be fairly difficult if not impossible to outlaw or legally restrict 'hands'. Maybe semiautomatic and high capacity hands but we're still going to need hands.
We're talking about violent video games, not guns.
Keep up.
Pro-corporate libertarians
... are called "Republicans"
Not the point.
Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued.
Re: selective use of facts - the article refers to government issued ammunition. Waffentragschein (gun permit) holders can still purchase (and, therefore, possess) non-government issue ammunition.
Someone else contradicted this elsewhere by saying ammo can only be bought at ranges, but even if it isn't true, there is a world of difference between giving gun permits to trained members of the army reserve - people who've proven themselves to be of sound mind and body, among other qualities - and the US approach of letting anyone who isn't demonstrably insane or criminal buy as many as they'd like.
That is correct, but it is by no means a contradiction of what I said (i.e., I never specified where the ammo could be purchased/possessed).
Also, there is an exception for concealed carry permit holders.
The situation in Switzerland is not even remotely comparable to the US situation, which is one big reason why the don't have the homicide rate you do, or the frequent mass killings you do.
Indeed - the Swiss actually train their youths in proper firearms use and maintenance, and when someone does something bad with a gun, they hold the person responsible instead of blaming the tool.
Pot, meet kettle.
Please god let this obnoxious phrase pass into the history books.
Good luck convincing people to stop saying shit that warrants such a response.
Waffentragschein (gun permit) holders can still purchase (and, therefore, possess) non-government issue ammunition.
Is that actually true? My understanding was that ammunition for the service rifles (whether military full auto, or converted to civilian semi-auto) is only available for sale at the ranges, and must be used there after purchase.
Seems you are correct, per Wikipedia:
Certainly, though, there are exceptions for concealed-carry permit holders.
Switzerland issues fully automatic assault rifles (real assault rifles, not just "scary looking semi-autos") to every mentally competent male of military-eligible age.
Switzerland also requires that said mentally competent males of military-eligible age go through military boot camp and be part of their National Guard Reserve equivalent. Once their term of service is over, the automatic capability of the rifles is disabled.
Right - proving my point that the issue in America isn't the presence of firearms, but rather the lack of proper training requirements.
I'm curious, did you mean to miss my point entirely, or was this an incident of pure ignorance?
Yes, the military issues firearm to their militia. No one ion the us is talking about removing guns from out military.
If they want to own a gun, they must be in a security profession where it is needed, and under strict licensing guidelines.
You didn't even read the Wiki page, did you?
Sport shooting is one of the most popular sports in Switzerland. So, unless you honestly think that the majority of Swiss people are "security professionals," that concept doesn't hold water.
So, lets make it so ONLY people in them military can be issued a gun, and only people who are in a security field where one is determined to be needed, and licensing happens every few years, and is very strict.
Or, you know, we could do the smart thing and train people to use guns, instead of resorting to the typical kneejerk, emotional reaction that does more harm than good.
People who bring up the Swiss as proof the gun ownership in the US is safe are idiots.
People who can't make their argument without resorting to childish name calling and personal attacks have no valid argument to make.
Many of the men you list strangled their victims.
...
and?
thingiverse is a private organization, they can do whatever they want.
its called 'freedom'.
Yea, this.
While I personally see it as an incredibly douche-baggy thing to do, it's their site, their right.
22 people attacked with a knife wielding nut in China, everyone survives
27 people attacked with a semi-automatic rifle with 30 bullet magazines, no one survives
9/11/2001 - 3000+ people attacked by 19 assholes with boxcutters, nobody survives.
Or is that somehow a different situation because the nutters in this case weren't 'Merican?
...my family's Lorenz rifled musket [was] designed for military use. In fact, [it's] more powerful than an AR-15 (.54 caliber). The only difference is, these guns don't look "scary"; wood furniture instead of plastic, no pistol grip ... This is all a knee-jerk reaction based solely upon looks, not capability.
Poor argument. Okay, .54 caliber may be considered "more powerful." However, I don't see killing 27 people with a muzzle-loader. Even the most chicken-shit would rush the guy while he reloaded.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Where do you usually break off your dildos?
I certainly won't be the first one to try out a 3d printed dil.... condom demonstrator. Can use say 'chafe'?
Just hit it with some 180 grit first.
Smooth out those rough edges.
Here is a crazy idea, GET RID OF THEM. If people want to go hunting let them use bows and there is no reason to have automatic weapons and handguns.
Cops and criminals (which are all too often one and the same) have them.
Reason enough.
And no remorse when it goes off accidentally and a round is pumping through your brain...
Oh, the hyperbole!
Serious question: does it hurt to be that much of a dumbfuck? Because it should.
No one treats a gun that way. They would be impossible to clean if you did.
This statement alone proves to me that you are not mature enough to be allowed to own a gun.
"...a trigger-identification system that prevents a gun from being fired by anyone other than its authorized user..."
Yeah, this was in Skyfall. Didn't realize it was actually practical. Or is it?
Neat, science-fictiony idea, but from a practical standpoint, all you're doing is adding a point of failure to a system of defense that must be extremely relialel to be effective... so no, not really practical.
The MFR simply makes the product. The owner still carries full weight and responsibility for proper use and misuse. Shouldnt have to have a law to state that.
With respect to guns, the proper, intended use of the product is to put holes into people.
Why should they be shielded from liability any more than tobacco companies?
A better question, for a supposedly free society, is why would we hold tobacco companies responsible for the stupidity of their customers?
What's next, are you going to advocate that GM and Jack Daniel's be held culpable for drunk driving accidents? 'Cuz that would be really, really stupid.
Really? What happened to those bedrock conservative principles of accountability and responsibility?
They exist, and exempting gun manufacturers from being responsible for what people do with their products is a perfect example of the philosophy.
Similarly, if a drunk driver hits you in traffic, you don't get to hold the manufacturer of the drunk's car accountable; you sue the drunk, as it was his responsibility to operate the vehicle in a safe and legal manner, not GM or Fords.
So would locking guns in a gun cabinet when not in use, as you're obligated to do.
But that relies on owner action.
These technologies are designed to remove owner action from the safety equation. It doesn't matter if the owner is responsible or not, since the technology doesn't care.
Any system that relies on personal-responsibility is unsafe, since individuals aren't reliable.
Any well designed system doesn't allow for individual actions to break the system.
Like how cars won't start if they detect alcohol on the driver's breath, right?
Or how plastic bags automatically shred themselves if they detect a child's head within them.
There's this concept, called "personal responsibility," that used to be the norm amongst humans; in general, the idea is that the onus of survival is on the individual, and if said individual is dumb enough to not follow proven safety guidelines, they take their lives into their own hands.
Remember a time when you could drive without a seatbelt on, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, and all you had to worry about was getting your own dumb ass killed in a gruesome manner?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.