Fixed that for you. Always assume a gun is loaded - even if you have absolute, undeniable proof that it isn't. It's the kind of crap they teach before kindergarten in rural areas.
Well, I personally wouldn't call firearm safety education "crap," but you're right that it is taught to children at a very young age in rural America (where I happen to hail from).
I remember being taught the 4 Cardinal Laws of firearm safety as young as six:
- treat every gun as if it's loaded
- never point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy
- always identify your target and what's behind it before firing
- keep your finger off the trigger until your target is fully sighted
Unbeknownst to me at the time, these are actually the same rules developed and taught by shooting legend Jeff Cooper. Since reading his Wikipedia page, I've come to believe intimate knowledge of the methods and ideas developed by Cooper should be mandatory prior to allowing a firearm to be purchased.
You've missed the point: GP stated their belief that firearm violence is commonplace in the US because gun ownership is prolific. I offered a counter-example of a nation that has prolific firearm ownership, but very low rates of firearm related violence.
What you've listed are likely some of the reasons why, and speaking as a firearm aficionado, most of them are not ideas that I would necessarily disagree with implementing, granted it was done in a fair, legal, and proper fashion.
A carry permit is required to have the gun in public at all, and generally you can only get those if you work in security.
According to Wikipedia:
Recreational shooting is widespread in Switzerland. Practice with guns is a popular form of recreation, and is encouraged by the government, particularly for the members of the militia. Swiss firearms-related rights are supported by the organization ProTell.
200,000 people attend the annual Feldschiessen weekend, which is the largest rifle shooting competition in the world. In addition, there are several private shooting ranges which rent guns.
Seems recreational shooting is far too popular a sport to be relegated solely to security personnel.
Oh, and if you look at the list of homicides for 100k people with guns Switzerland is the next highest "western" nation after the US. 2.97 to.77. ~ 4:1.
That's general homicide.
Per the Wiki article, the homicide rate involving firearms is much lower: 0.52 per 100k population.
When bringing up Switzerland in a discussion about gun control, you're being dishonest unless you also point out a few things:
Maybe, but this particular discussion isn't about gun control in general, it's about whether or not having prolific firearm ownership directly leads to increased acts of violence, as suggested by OP:
But there is one big difference between us and the rest of the world.
We have the mostest, biggest, baddest guns.
Training, population size, and poverty rates are non sequitur to this particular discussion.
If you want to have a reasoned debate you cannot selectively use facts.
Agreed, and that's a two way street:
Wikipedia tells me that for the past five years, Switzerland has only permitted 2,000 of those with military issue weapons to store ammunition at home.
From the article:
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.
Pot, meet kettle.
You also neglect to mention that the weapons are issued to civilians who have undergone military training. This is not like turning up at Walmart and buying a semi-automatic.
I neglected to mention a lot of things, as they were non sequitur to the point I was making, and I'm not in the habit of needless pontification.
Regarding this point of yours, I personally believe proper training should be mandatory prior to allowing an individual to purchase any firearm.
Unless you're suggesting as a solution to gun crime that everyone of age should be conscripted to receive military training and the government should be allowed in private homes to audit your weapons?
I suggested no such thing - I will, however, recommend for future reference that you fully read and understand the premise of a post before you respond to it, thus assuring that your statements are at least relevant to the topic at hand.
Don't get me wrong, I think the way the Swiss (and several other Nordic countries) handle their gun laws is probably the best way to go about it; however, considering the US government's recent track record, I don't trust them to enact such measures in a fair and even manner.
Which is, ultimately, the issue American firearm aficionado's have with restrictive gun laws - history has shown us that men with power ought not to be trusted.
Really? Julius Caesar played violent video games? Ghenghis Khan? Al Capone?
Tim McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, Ted Kaczynski, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, Jim Jones, Donald Harvey, Dean Corll, any of those Al Queda fuckheads...
But there is one big difference between us and the rest of the world.
We have the mostest, biggest, baddest guns.
(Baddestest?)
Switzerland issues fully automatic assault rifles (real assault rifles, not just "scary looking semi-autos") to every mentally competent male of military-eligible age. The type of weapons that are incredibly difficult to acquire in the US (for those of us not obscenely wealthy, anyway)
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.
But there is one big difference between us and the rest of the world.
Indeed, and you already pointed it out:
the rest of the world may actually take care of their mentally ill.
Let them tap our phones, read our emails, track our movements, take over health care, outspend the rest of the world in military and police power, disarm the legal gun owner and kill children in lands that we haven't declared war with by remote control.
Everything will be fine. Just sit back and relax and know that big brother has it all in hand. It won't hurt... much. The real important thing here is that the party you belong to wins regardless of their track record.
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
Is this the usual propaganda where corporations having your data == scary bad and government having your data == It's OK, the government is your friend and you need the government to take care of you because you are a helpless moron?
Considering recent events, I'm a bit shocked that there are people out there who still think there's some sort of difference.
If you want to be a[n] American citizen with but a vestige of privacy, don't carry a cellphone, or venture into public, or have a profile on any website, or use the internet period, etc. etc. etc.
4th amendment is no intrusion in your home and some private property like a car or boat along with having the content of your phone conversations private
Bullshit:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Nowhere does it state that the right to be free from search and seizure without warrant only applies in your own home or on private property, and only an absolute fucking moron (or government shill) would think otherwise.
Thank $deity that you don't get to decide my rights.
OTOH its a nice way to remind other people to stay the fuck out of systems which do NOT BELONG TO THEM.
Right, 'cuz if someone hacks your computer and posts sensitive information online, the FBI will of course go after those criminals with the same zeal as they did this fellow.
Just ask the hundreds of thousands of people who get their identities stolen every year.
I think it is more like opening someone's snail mail box and photocopying all of their incoming and outgoing mail which included dirty pictures. Illegal, but not nearly as bad as breaking into a house and stealing items.
Tampering with the mail is a federal offence, that carries fines of $10,000 - $25,000 and up to 3 years in prison per offence.
The difference is, having your mail read doesn't feel like as much of a violation as having your home and belongings rifled through, but from a punitive standpoint, they are pretty much one and the same.
And once again, this is why I think the electric car's time has come or nearly come.
That happened already - in the early 20th century, electric cars were all the rage in large metropolitan areas. Of course, they were severely limited by the battery technology of the time, so I do believe if we can get the costs down, electric cars stand to make a significant comeback in those regions.
Side note: I always wondered why city-only cars would have batteries, and not just use a constantly connected grid system like bumper cars...
Ignoring everything else good (and there is a lot), we get zero fumes (at least in the areas that matter, since the electricity has to come from somewhere).
I see, so those of us who live near the power plants don't matter. How considerate of you.
We'll keep that in mind when it comes time to decide who gets hit with the brownout:P
Also, I was unaware that automobile manufacturing was a zero-sum game. I'm curious - do the LiOn batteries come from unicorn feces, or are they conjured up by fairies?
For those who don't know, the Tesla Model S has received countless "car of the year" 2012/2013 awards, up against all the usual gas guzzlers.
The Smart ForTwo, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Yaris, and Prius (cars that the Tesla competed with) are all "gas guzzlers?" Bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
And it's been pretty unanimous. I didn't take an interest in cars before at all, but that one car has changed all that.
I take an interest in cars, and I can tell you that decision has been far from unanimous; Car & Driver didn't even include any Tesla model in the 2012 comparo.
Not to belittle the Tesla company, they've got a great thing going, but I just can't stand hyperbole... guess I'll have to go kill myself....
Modern cars run so completely clean compared to their ancestors
You're forgetting a very important factor: cars are also much, much more prolific than they were 50 years ago; by 2011, there were over 1,000,000,000 cars operating worldwide.
Let this be a lesson: ceteris paribus may work perfectly in theory, but when put to practical application it's completely worthless bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
"you don't point a gun at people EVER"
Fixed that for you. Always assume a gun is loaded - even if you have absolute, undeniable proof that it isn't. It's the kind of crap they teach before kindergarten in rural areas.
Well, I personally wouldn't call firearm safety education "crap," but you're right that it is taught to children at a very young age in rural America (where I happen to hail from).
I remember being taught the 4 Cardinal Laws of firearm safety as young as six:
- treat every gun as if it's loaded
- never point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy
- always identify your target and what's behind it before firing
- keep your finger off the trigger until your target is fully sighted
Unbeknownst to me at the time, these are actually the same rules developed and taught by shooting legend Jeff Cooper. Since reading his Wikipedia page, I've come to believe intimate knowledge of the methods and ideas developed by Cooper should be mandatory prior to allowing a firearm to be purchased.
You do realize some of those statistics are almost/over 20 years old, don't you?
WTF, New Zealand doesn't have any data more recent than 1993? Why are they even being included?
Indeed, the amount of gun violence in the US is disproportionately higher than any other country on earth.
[citation needed]
I have no citation that the statement is correct, but here is citation that it is wrong: List of countries by firearms related death rate.
If you sort on gun-homicides, you will see that the USA is 14th. Most of the "winners" are in Latin America.
Yes, facts are quite handy for disarming emotional nonsense. That is, assuming your audience has any stomach for reality.
Thanks for the info.
You've missed the point: GP stated their belief that firearm violence is commonplace in the US because gun ownership is prolific. I offered a counter-example of a nation that has prolific firearm ownership, but very low rates of firearm related violence.
What you've listed are likely some of the reasons why, and speaking as a firearm aficionado, most of them are not ideas that I would necessarily disagree with implementing, granted it was done in a fair, legal, and proper fashion.
A carry permit is required to have the gun in public at all, and generally you can only get those if you work in security.
According to Wikipedia:
Seems recreational shooting is far too popular a sport to be relegated solely to security personnel.
Oh, and if you look at the list of homicides for 100k people with guns Switzerland is the next highest "western" nation after the US. 2.97 to .77. ~ 4:1.
That's general homicide.
Per the Wiki article, the homicide rate involving firearms is much lower: 0.52 per 100k population.
When bringing up Switzerland in a discussion about gun control, you're being dishonest unless you also point out a few things:
Maybe, but this particular discussion isn't about gun control in general, it's about whether or not having prolific firearm ownership directly leads to increased acts of violence, as suggested by OP:
Training, population size, and poverty rates are non sequitur to this particular discussion.
If you want to have a reasoned debate you cannot selectively use facts.
Agreed, and that's a two way street:
Wikipedia tells me that for the past five years, Switzerland has only permitted 2,000 of those with military issue weapons to store ammunition at home.
From the article:
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.
Pot, meet kettle.
You also neglect to mention that the weapons are issued to civilians who have undergone military training. This is not like turning up at Walmart and buying a semi-automatic.
I neglected to mention a lot of things, as they were non sequitur to the point I was making, and I'm not in the habit of needless pontification.
Regarding this point of yours, I personally believe proper training should be mandatory prior to allowing an individual to purchase any firearm.
Unless you're suggesting as a solution to gun crime that everyone of age should be conscripted to receive military training and the government should be allowed in private homes to audit your weapons?
I suggested no such thing - I will, however, recommend for future reference that you fully read and understand the premise of a post before you respond to it, thus assuring that your statements are at least relevant to the topic at hand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Don't get me wrong, I think the way the Swiss (and several other Nordic countries) handle their gun laws is probably the best way to go about it; however, considering the US government's recent track record, I don't trust them to enact such measures in a fair and even manner.
Which is, ultimately, the issue American firearm aficionado's have with restrictive gun laws - history has shown us that men with power ought not to be trusted.
Really? Julius Caesar played violent video games? Ghenghis Khan? Al Capone?
Tim McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, Charles Manson, Ted Kaczynski, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, Jim Jones, Donald Harvey, Dean Corll, any of those Al Queda fuckheads...
And those are just 20th century madmen.
Indeed, the amount of gun violence in the US is disproportionately higher than any other country on earth.
[citation needed]
But there is one big difference between us and the rest of the world. We have the mostest, biggest, baddest guns. (Baddestest?)
Switzerland issues fully automatic assault rifles (real assault rifles, not just "scary looking semi-autos") to every mentally competent male of military-eligible age. The type of weapons that are incredibly difficult to acquire in the US (for those of us not obscenely wealthy, anyway)
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.
But there is one big difference between us and the rest of the world.
Indeed, and you already pointed it out:
the rest of the world may actually take care of their mentally ill.
There's the real issue at hand.
Appropriate soundtrack can be found here
Let them tap our phones, read our emails, track our movements, take over health care, outspend the rest of the world in military and police power, disarm the legal gun owner and kill children in lands that we haven't declared war with by remote control. Everything will be fine. Just sit back and relax and know that big brother has it all in hand. It won't hurt... much. The real important thing here is that the party you belong to wins regardless of their track record.
But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
Is this the usual propaganda where corporations having your data == scary bad and government having your data == It's OK, the government is your friend and you need the government to take care of you because you are a helpless moron?
Considering recent events, I'm a bit shocked that there are people out there who still think there's some sort of difference.
If you want to be a[n] American citizen with but a vestige of privacy, don't carry a cellphone, or venture into public, or have a profile on any website, or use the internet period, etc. etc. etc.
FTFY.
Fixed it real good.
4th amendment is no intrusion in your home and some private property like a car or boat along with having the content of your phone conversations private
Bullshit:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Nowhere does it state that the right to be free from search and seizure without warrant only applies in your own home or on private property, and only an absolute fucking moron (or government shill) would think otherwise.
Thank $deity that you don't get to decide my rights.
Side note: I always wondered why city-only cars would have batteries, and not just use a constantly connected grid system like bumper cars...
Safety. Overhead high voltage needs either supervision (like a fairground ride) or separation (like a fenced off railway track).
Fair enough... although, to me such a thing is a challenge to be tackled, not shied away from.
We're smart little monkeys - if we can figure out quantum entanglement, we can figure out how to build a safer grid system.
Matt Taibbi is a fucking American Hero.
That is all.
OTOH its a nice way to remind other people to stay the fuck out of systems which do NOT BELONG TO THEM.
Right, 'cuz if someone hacks your computer and posts sensitive information online, the FBI will of course go after those criminals with the same zeal as they did this fellow.
Just ask the hundreds of thousands of people who get their identities stolen every year.
I think it is more like opening someone's snail mail box and photocopying all of their incoming and outgoing mail which included dirty pictures. Illegal, but not nearly as bad as breaking into a house and stealing items.
Tampering with the mail is a federal offence, that carries fines of $10,000 - $25,000 and up to 3 years in prison per offence.
The difference is, having your mail read doesn't feel like as much of a violation as having your home and belongings rifled through, but from a punitive standpoint, they are pretty much one and the same.
I'm curious, how do you prove that a death was directly related to car exhaust?
Same way they "prove" deaths directly caused by second-hand smoke, I suppose.
"Trust us, we wouldn't bullshit you!"
And once again, this is why I think the electric car's time has come or nearly come.
That happened already - in the early 20th century, electric cars were all the rage in large metropolitan areas. Of course, they were severely limited by the battery technology of the time, so I do believe if we can get the costs down, electric cars stand to make a significant comeback in those regions.
Side note: I always wondered why city-only cars would have batteries, and not just use a constantly connected grid system like bumper cars...
Ignoring everything else good (and there is a lot), we get zero fumes (at least in the areas that matter, since the electricity has to come from somewhere).
I see, so those of us who live near the power plants don't matter. How considerate of you.
:P
We'll keep that in mind when it comes time to decide who gets hit with the brownout
Also, I was unaware that automobile manufacturing was a zero-sum game. I'm curious - do the LiOn batteries come from unicorn feces, or are they conjured up by fairies?
For those who don't know, the Tesla Model S has received countless "car of the year" 2012/2013 awards, up against all the usual gas guzzlers.
The Smart ForTwo, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Yaris, and Prius (cars that the Tesla competed with) are all "gas guzzlers?" Bit hyperbolic, don't you think?
And it's been pretty unanimous. I didn't take an interest in cars before at all, but that one car has changed all that.
I take an interest in cars, and I can tell you that decision has been far from unanimous; Car & Driver didn't even include any Tesla model in the 2012 comparo.
Not to belittle the Tesla company, they've got a great thing going, but I just can't stand hyperbole... guess I'll have to go kill myself....
I'm down for some Death by Crushed Pelvis!
Modern cars run so completely clean compared to their ancestors
You're forgetting a very important factor: cars are also much, much more prolific than they were 50 years ago; by 2011, there were over 1,000,000,000 cars operating worldwide.
Let this be a lesson: ceteris paribus may work perfectly in theory, but when put to practical application it's completely worthless bullshit.