Why doesn't the NRA defend all the freedoms enshrined by the bill of rights?
Why doesn't the ACLU defend our firearm rights? At least the NRA is explicitly about firearms, though I chided* them recently about their attack on the 1st.
Consider the abortion debate and the fight over banning "partial birth" abortions - a type that at it's height was done about a dozen times a year, and never in cases where the mother's health wasn't at heightened risk from the pregnancy or the fetus wasn't viable.
They're not going to let you set much more of a tax than is already on firearms and ammo.
Still, let's examine effectiveness. Let's say we impose a $1/round tax. That's around a 20% price increase for premium hunting ammunition, which currently runs around $5/round. Plinking ammo is more like $.20-.60/round, so you're looking at 3-5x the price. Still, going by my readings of spree killings, despite having large amounts of ammo on them, most go through less than 100 rounds, and I don't remember an incident where they broke 200. Maybe they're optimists. Still, I'll break 200 in a day at the range easy. I've shot more than 500 in a day before.
Let's say the median number of rounds is 100, you're looking at a pre-tax price of $20-60. Post tax, it's $120-160, which for somebody going on a suicidal rampage is not what I'd consider a hefty price.
Let's look at it a different way: Spree killings are an extreme outlier compared to most murders. Let's think about regular criminals. Regular criminals generally use whatever gun they can get hold of, in whatever caliber. They actually tend to prefer smaller, easier to hide calibers. Whatever.
I remember reading that the median number of shots by a criminal, in a confrontation where they shoot, is 3. In most confrontations, the criminal doesn't fire. In their case, you're increasing the cost of him feeding his weapon from $20 to $40.
Also ineffective, yet sufficient to have a real chilling effect on the completely legal hobby of target shooting.
You're right, total pressure depends on the surface area, but when it comes to containing gas pressure, size matters less than you think.
You could make an aircraft that could hold the pressure of a scuba tank; but it'd be too heavy. A scuba tank is a LOT heavier for the surface area than a plane, and a plane needs to withstand many different stresses than the tank.
If you're making a tank, small or large the gauge of steel needed for the pressure remains about the same for the given pressure. Larger tanks will need more support to withstand the stress of gravity - which isn't perfectly proportional, but that's not a problem in space.
I was looking around, it turns out that the inflatables produced by Bigelow have a 15 cm thick skin, and while I'm not finding any source, I seem to remember them inflating one up to 50+ PSI on the ground as part of some test and not having a problem.
Given how cheaply most gauges are built, I'd simply say 'put the gauge markings assuming that the outside is at 14.7 PSI, sea level'.
But them being relative makes sense. You'd fill your vehicle up in Denver(mile high city) with a little less absolute pressure than in Florida, but that wouldn't matter much as there would be less air pressure trying to collapse them.
Also, if a rubber tire can withstand 90+ PSI*, I have no problems believing that an advanced hybrid using fibers tougher than kevlar can hold 14.7 PSI without problem.
*Going by explode point, not daily use, though I know of rubber tires
People live in tents with little problem, and the walls of these modules are rather high tech no matter what. Plus, when you fill it up to something resembling sea level(14.7 psi), you're going to have a structure that's about as stiff as the thin aluminum walls of a solid structure. They're almost certainly stronger - we have much better tensile strength materials than flexural strength. A big tube of aluminum will end up flexing on it's own, probably more than the inflated module.
For a real world example, many car tires are only inflated to 30 psi. So consider how stiff that tire is at less than 10% more than the difference between vacuum and the module. Pay attention to the thinner wall - not the tread, of course.
In something like 90% of self defense cases with a firearm no shots are fired. Given the perception(and reality) of the police in many areas, people don't feel it's worth the risk to contact them. After all, when the cops come and don't have an obvious bad guy to arrest, they might just find something to arrest you for.
And in Switzerland that would be more than enough to prevent you from possessing a firearm ever again.
Didn't specify that because it's the situation in the USA as well.
Also, gun and ammunition sales are controlled (you failed to mention this when you said bullets were subsidies, you also failed to mention that ammunition purchased at ranges must be used there).
If you can buy it anywhere but the range or the range doesn't have extensive controls to prevent you from simply not shooting all your ammo and taking some home, it's an ineffective control.
The "imaginary land" you call Switzerland does not exist.
Not helping your cause. I may not be 100% up on how Switzerland does things, but most of the stuff you're bringing up simply doesn't matter.
because if you do anything stupid with guns (like walk around the streets with a loaded firearm) they will take them off you.
Again, the situation in the states unless you have the relevant permits, thus I view it as irrelevant.
I did just fix that, you're making stuff up to support a point that is patently wrong.
I'm not making stuff up, you're not reading well. Again, I'm not trying to make the USA into a clone of Switzerland. I'm talking about taking us closer to them in a few ways. That's sufficient for 'more like'. I didn't say 'copy', 'identical', or even 'mimic'.
I think you really need to live in Switzerland before commenting on them as you clearly have no idea what gun culture is like there.
Maybe. I think the opportunities for me to be stationed there are very limited though.
By military personnel, All Swiss men undertake military training at age 20 and remain in the military until at least 30. This is why Switzerland has no standing army, they rely on a civilian militia (that has received military training). These people have gun safety drilled into them.
So didn't the Fort Hood shooter.
Here your credibility goes through the window. A proper gun safe is difficult to open without explosives, it's also bolted to a houses foundations (this is the kind of safe my guns are stored in). You do not store firearms in a $20 safe you purchased from a hardware store.
You're into 'No true Scottsman' fallacy, so I believe my credibility is just fine. I was saying 'Gun Safe' in the sense of what 'most' people buy - the ones available from sporting goods stores and even Walmart. Yes, it's a very good idea to bolt it down, which drastically increases the security, but I remember a survey showing that 90% of them aren't bolted down properly. I'm NOT including ones sold as 'Gun Locker/Cabinet' - which will stop up to a young teenager, and is built so lightly it'll flex during movement, costing up to around a couple hundred. Gun Safes start at around $600, have far more rigid construction and are generally fire rated to some level. Still, there's plenty of youtube videos of people getting them open. Heck, my GSA vault door is only rated to stand up to hand tools for several hours.
You obviously haven't read the history available about the second. Or at least a very selective version of it.
While militias were important, there was no question that the right to keep and bear arms was to be more about the people, than the militia. You had founders writing it into their basic lists for human rights.
By your argument though, the federal government really should do more about keeping the militias relevant - such as by subsidizing ranges, training, and competition more.
You seem to make the mistake that the writers of the constitution were concerned with unlimited gun rights, when they were really concerned about having a well regulated militia to protect the state
Did you know that the original was more: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
One of the preparers was rather fond of the use of commas, placing one whenever you would pause while speaking the phrase.
Most weapons kept at home are kept as part of their military obligations (hence most weapons are SIG 550 and SIG-Sauer P220's, the standard issue for Swiss milita),
The Sig 550 modified to be semi-automatic only in militia hands is still a 5.56mm weapon of essentially identical functionality as the AR-15. The P220 is a 9mm handgun of essentially identical functionality as the M9 used by the US Military.
They're very nice weapons, but they're still military weapons kept at the home. IE the household has full access to them unless the family is different enough to keep different safes. Even then, most gun safes only stand up to a crowbar for a very limited period of time, to say nothing of what can happen with power tools. If a Swiss militia member broke in the specific fashion of most spree killers, they have everything they need to go on a very comprehensive rampage.
Then again, because so many other people have the exact same training and weapons, return fire will generally cut the problem short. Plus, well, functional health care system, including mental health.
So no, you didn't 'fix that'. Just implementing a UHC system would 'make us more like Switzerland'(and England, Australia, Canada, Germany, etc....)
ammunition is also issued to them and every round is expected to be returned although most of this ammunition has been recalled since 2007. The Swiss are very tough on any misconduct with firearms, such as travelling (transported) with a loaded firearm.
That's their war pack. It's issued in case of invasion so that the soldiers have a guaranteed amount of ammunition in order to be able to fight their way to the bases/resupply points. Or put up guerrilla resistance. As such, it's still the government's ammunition and only to be used in case of war; thus the accounting method. What you don't mention is that it's quite easy to buy ammunition(though you have to show your card for that), with the government actually subsidizing the military calibers/rounds for practice use.
Do you really think that rules against traveling with a loaded firearm would really deter somebody bent on murder? Heck, somebody like the Aurora shooter would be able to transport their arsenal, perhaps in a gym bag, breaking into their warpack for the necessary ammunition(assuming they don't just buy some), then 'lock and load' at the planned location, perhaps in private spot like a bathroom.
But that doesn't happen there. Still, I think there's good merit in the militia system. How about we allow people to obtain AR type weapons upon passage of a military training course? The rough draft rules are: 1. Can be no more difficult than passing any branch's basic training. IE it'd be a race between the Navy and the Air Force for minimum standards on weapon training. Honestly, I'm picturing about a week. That's long enough for most of the nuts to be spotted and washed out. 2. The person must pass the background check, same as entering recruits 3. Physical capability requirements are to be relaxed. Basically, you can't fail on PT performance. 4. All of this is paid for by the federal government. Including a credit equal to a bog standard M-4/16 or whatever replaces it. Or the trainee can just get the gun. 5. Each year, in exchange for membership in the 'registered militia', the individual gets to attend a military qualification course. It's about a day, and ammunition is provided. 6. Gun Safe purchases will be subsidized.
In order for the US to become like Switzerland, it would need to become very tough on any tiny misuse of firearms and more than willing to remove firearms from anyone who even looks at their guns funny.
Like I said to another poster - I'm not actually calling for the US to actually become identical to the USA. At least in my mind, 'Like' still allows for a LOT of differences.
Source on the Aurora shooting. I'm not going to give him a name. As noted in the article, the theater he chose was not the closest. It was not the largest. It was the only one that banned handguns(at the time).
I've heard about lots of prevented massacres; but you have to look for them, unlike successful ones - the successful ones make the national/world news; you're lucky if a successful one makes the regional newspaper.
The biggest problem I see with doing away with gun-free zones is that the next round of psychos will simply start using bombs instead of guns.
Start? The columbine kids had a huge bomb. Maybe if they hadn't had guns they'd have put the extra effort into making sure it worked.
How do you define "Depicting people"? I've never shot at a 'person' - mostly bulls-eyes or silhouettes. It's often hard to see the holes with full color targets.
Then again, what do you mean "it has"? Some ranges sell supplies - ammunition, targets and such, but most of the ones I've shot at don't, you have to bring in your targets. Many people print their own; at which point you're opening the floodgates. Most ranges have banned shooting at 'realistic depictions of people'. Rangemasters were generally fine when people were shooting at images of 'generic' criminals(paid models for professionally printed targets like what the cops shoot at during target/threat discrimination training), Bin Laden, when a few idiots switched to shooting at images of presidents(and candidates) that stopped quick. Thus the current rage for shooting at pictures of zombies(and animal zombies).
They glorify killing, thinly veiled under 'self defense' and 'anti-terrorism' motifs.
You missed hunting. You want glorifying killing, look up the 'extremist' gun lobbies like GOA(Gun Owners of America). The NRA-ILA is reasonably reasonable in comparison.
Just remember that the lines were set back in 1954, the last major agreement in '68(I think), thus more restrictions is a bit like you giving your ex-wife half ownership of your small business then her coming for alimony - in the form of half the profits from said business(including her half).
Having lived in both the US and Switzerland, while being a citizen of neither, the differences are far, far greater than having a social support structure.
Nice post, but I was simply referring to the US becoming 'more like', which as you say, we're pretty different as is, so there would still be huge differences. I certainly didn't mean to imply anything close to 'identical'.
Switzerland has a love of law, order and putting the community before the individual which I can simply cannot see the US ever managing to cope with.
Depends on the region, I guess. The success of some of the more bizarre recycling programs in California and elsewhere indicate that a fair amount of the USA could cope; that's without getting into some of the stricter homeowner's associations, which can get some bizarre rules of their own.
don't run a washing machine after 9pm otherwise the police may show up at your door
Sounds like a noise complaint.
I would argue that it is this mentality which is what keeps the Swiss crime rate so low, not just because they have strong social policies
Consider the differences in social policies if we ended the war on drugs and turned 'law enforcement officers' back into 'peace officers', cleaned up the slums*, gave people prospects, etc...
Outside of the inner cities, most of the USA has crime rates closer to that of Europe. In the bad parts of said cities, it's worse than Somalia. As such, I believe the fix has to be extensive but extremely targeted.
*Inner city black males at one point had a life expectancy of ~30.
I've read that it costs the government on average a quarter million per year per homeless person. This is between your facilities like your wife's, homeless shelters, police, jail, courts, outreach programs, crimes, etc...
While a state run mental hospital(Asylum) is expensive, is it $250k per person per year expensive?
I'm a 'practical minarchist'. While I tend to eye government spending suspiciously, sometimes spending the money NOW saves more than enough money later to justify it. If having a functional school will cost an additional million, but prevent 10 students from becoming criminals, it's worth it. Without getting into the presumed additional taxes from the extra wages the better educated kids will be able to demand.
Basically, if I got what I wanted government would actually have to expand in the short term as new programs came into being to catch and fix problems before they become problems - but it's going to take a while to deal with the glut of problems our procrastination has allowed to build up. Then, as the glut passes, we could streamline the government and draw down the programs - huge amounts of savings simply by saving prison space, for example. Every person we keep from entering the court system and prison is probably 2 people who can go work something else productive. Green energy or fiber to the home, perhaps.
Ever gone hunting in heavy brush? Every inch makes hauling a rifle more of a pain. A carbine is also handier for home defense, in the sense that "a handgun is what you use to fight your way to your rifle". It's STILL going to be far larger than a handgun.
Given the cost of ammo and guns, if you can afford such, you can afford a decent transport solution as well.
I'll admit. AR type rifles will run you around a grand starting price, and as with most durable goods ultimately the sky(or your budget) is the limit, but they're premium.
I can pick up a.22LR for ~$200. A box of 500 rounds for ~$50. Or I can get a brand new hunting rifle in.45-70 for $500, and ammunition is ~$1 round for premium hunting rounds. If I'm willing, I can load it with self cast bullets(the caliber is that old...), and probably get the price down to 10 cents a round. In handguns I can pick up a highpoint for $200, and round run about 25 cents a pop today.
4.3M members isn't an astroturf organization. The gun industry plays a part, but a lot of it is that we like our guns, and don't want to see more hassle with enjoying our hobbies.
The problem is that the NRA has compromised multiple times, starting way back in 1934. The problem is that it's like you're meeting in the middle, but then you step backwards and expect us to 'compromise' again, going with the NEW position as the new starting point.
I'm willing to listen to proposed restrictions. It's just that I see 99% of gun control regulation being ineffective or downright stupid and people are unwilling to listen to me explain *WHY* it's going to be effective.
It's like how the response to an assassination attempt with a super short.22 revolver results in an attempt to ban scary black rifles. How, today 99% of the gun-banners seem to be concentrating on 'assault weapons', when rifles are used less to commit murder than blunt instruments.
Then you get into the weird things: The AWB increased the fatality rate in shootings. Why? 1. The AWB restricted magazine size to 10. Before this, the 9mm was the most popular caliber, called 'wonder 9's'. Standard magazine size was 15 rounds. 2. Unable to economically GET 15 round magazines, suddenly larger caliber handguns were more competitive - if you can only shoot 10 rounds, why not get a.40S&W? 3. Since criminals get their weapons from the legal side; they started trading up.(Note: I believe that.22lr is still the preferred caliber for criminals). 4. The average number of shots fired in a criminal encounter is around 3. Not 15, 10, or even 7. 3. 5. The average number of shots fired didn't decrease during the AWB 6. Being hit with a.40S&W(10 round standard mag) or a.45ACP(7 round!) is deadlier than a.380 or 9mm.
A potential spree killer can cause as much damage with 100 round as he can with a thousand. One gun vs a dozen. A hundred rounds is a rather light range visit.
From my reading of their laws, the ammo is tracked only to make sure they still have it - and was repealed several years ago. Other than that, they actually subsidize ammo purchase for practice purposes.
I'm not saying that we need to go 100% Swiss model, I just said 'more like'. Registration isn't going to stop a potential spree killer/suicide type.
Fix the mental health system. Train everybody on firearm safety. End the war on drugs. Fix the education system, really work on ending poverty.
Perhaps I used the wrong word; I said "media" not meaning "news media", but more "multi media". IE encompassing news, television entertainment, movies, comics, and even video games. I specifically SAID that the news is part of the problem, where I disagree with the NRA is that games/tv/movies might be to blame. I even identified a specific subsection of how the news handles a spree killer that encourages more(paying attention to the killer's life).
To my knowledge, the only time 'media' has been shown to increase violence is when they show live action "cartoons" to pre-teens then let them play unsupervised. Then the kids tend to imitate what they see on the program with each other, and despite this there's generally no serious injuries from such play; much like 'Cowboys and Indians' from the time when I was a young kid. Much like wild animals, "play" in humans often involves enactments of theoretically extremely violent conflict, but toned down to avoid serious injury. Considering how prevalent violence has been in human history, being prepared for it through play makes sense. That doesn't mean that a functional adult, or even child, isn't generally fully capable of knowing the difference between play and an actual fight/carrying out of the threat.
Since the computer age, violence has actually been going down in the USA. From what I've seen, violent computer game play by teens/adults tends to actually lower violence on average. It's not like schools shootings never happened before broadcast TV, cable, internet, etc... It's only know that they reach such a wide audience. Shoot a dozen kids in a school and you'll make the news world wide.
This is the trap that a special interest group that concentrates on one facet tends to fall into - the NRA-ILA is extremely specialized. It's good at what it does, which is protect our rights to guns. I'll note that way back in the day the NRA actually stood for *some* gun control, but like many things today, there's much more of a demand for a 'line in the sand' type approach as there's a high perception that there's a large faction of anti-gun people out there that want to confiscate every gun, and are trying to use creeping legislation to do it gradually. Still, any time the NRA tries to vary from just protecting firearms and shooting activities it runs into the problem that it's members are extremely varied in views otherwise.
I'm not a special interest group, I invest in other organizations like the EFF and ACLU to help with the other topics; it's just that the ACLU tends to lean anti-gun. The last couple of years has had my views shift quite a bit; I need to research the mental health issue and find a good group to support.
Disclaimer: Lifetime NRA member(it was half price!).
I'm currently pissed at the NRA for pointing the finger at violent media, though they had a point if they'd restricted it to the *news*. Specifically, the making of the shooter into a celebrity, the digging into their life, etc...
I also happen to think our support structure for the mentally ill is horribly broken and needs to be fixed. End the war on drugs, actually combat poverty, treat the sick and we'd be more like Switzerland - awash with guns, but very little crime, not just 'little gun crime'.
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't the NRA defend all the freedoms enshrined by the bill of rights?
Why doesn't the ACLU defend our firearm rights? At least the NRA is explicitly about firearms, though I chided* them recently about their attack on the 1st.
*To put it politely.
According to the FBI, 300,000 people defended themselves with guns
Not According to the FBI, that's the National Crime Victimization Survey(NCVS) figure.
It's also a low end estimate - 1M is more the middle.
Consider the abortion debate and the fight over banning "partial birth" abortions - a type that at it's height was done about a dozen times a year, and never in cases where the mother's health wasn't at heightened risk from the pregnancy or the fetus wasn't viable.
They're not going to let you set much more of a tax than is already on firearms and ammo.
Still, let's examine effectiveness. Let's say we impose a $1/round tax. That's around a 20% price increase for premium hunting ammunition, which currently runs around $5/round. Plinking ammo is more like $.20-.60/round, so you're looking at 3-5x the price. Still, going by my readings of spree killings, despite having large amounts of ammo on them, most go through less than 100 rounds, and I don't remember an incident where they broke 200. Maybe they're optimists. Still, I'll break 200 in a day at the range easy. I've shot more than 500 in a day before.
Let's say the median number of rounds is 100, you're looking at a pre-tax price of $20-60. Post tax, it's $120-160, which for somebody going on a suicidal rampage is not what I'd consider a hefty price.
Let's look at it a different way: Spree killings are an extreme outlier compared to most murders. Let's think about regular criminals. Regular criminals generally use whatever gun they can get hold of, in whatever caliber. They actually tend to prefer smaller, easier to hide calibers. Whatever.
I remember reading that the median number of shots by a criminal, in a confrontation where they shoot, is 3. In most confrontations, the criminal doesn't fire. In their case, you're increasing the cost of him feeding his weapon from $20 to $40.
Also ineffective, yet sufficient to have a real chilling effect on the completely legal hobby of target shooting.
You're right, total pressure depends on the surface area, but when it comes to containing gas pressure, size matters less than you think.
You could make an aircraft that could hold the pressure of a scuba tank; but it'd be too heavy. A scuba tank is a LOT heavier for the surface area than a plane, and a plane needs to withstand many different stresses than the tank.
If you're making a tank, small or large the gauge of steel needed for the pressure remains about the same for the given pressure. Larger tanks will need more support to withstand the stress of gravity - which isn't perfectly proportional, but that's not a problem in space.
I was looking around, it turns out that the inflatables produced by Bigelow have a 15 cm thick skin, and while I'm not finding any source, I seem to remember them inflating one up to 50+ PSI on the ground as part of some test and not having a problem.
Given how cheaply most gauges are built, I'd simply say 'put the gauge markings assuming that the outside is at 14.7 PSI, sea level'.
But them being relative makes sense. You'd fill your vehicle up in Denver(mile high city) with a little less absolute pressure than in Florida, but that wouldn't matter much as there would be less air pressure trying to collapse them.
Also, if a rubber tire can withstand 90+ PSI*, I have no problems believing that an advanced hybrid using fibers tougher than kevlar can hold 14.7 PSI without problem.
*Going by explode point, not daily use, though I know of rubber tires
People live in tents with little problem, and the walls of these modules are rather high tech no matter what. Plus, when you fill it up to something resembling sea level(14.7 psi), you're going to have a structure that's about as stiff as the thin aluminum walls of a solid structure. They're almost certainly stronger - we have much better tensile strength materials than flexural strength. A big tube of aluminum will end up flexing on it's own, probably more than the inflated module.
For a real world example, many car tires are only inflated to 30 psi. So consider how stiff that tire is at less than 10% more than the difference between vacuum and the module. Pay attention to the thinner wall - not the tread, of course.
Negative, but I do like it.
It's nice when somebody doesn't assume. Of course, it's been years since it was revised, but at this point it's traditional.
In something like 90% of self defense cases with a firearm no shots are fired. Given the perception(and reality) of the police in many areas, people don't feel it's worth the risk to contact them. After all, when the cops come and don't have an obvious bad guy to arrest, they might just find something to arrest you for.
And in Switzerland that would be more than enough to prevent you from possessing a firearm ever again.
Didn't specify that because it's the situation in the USA as well.
Also, gun and ammunition sales are controlled (you failed to mention this when you said bullets were subsidies, you also failed to mention that ammunition purchased at ranges must be used there).
If you can buy it anywhere but the range or the range doesn't have extensive controls to prevent you from simply not shooting all your ammo and taking some home, it's an ineffective control.
The "imaginary land" you call Switzerland does not exist.
Not helping your cause. I may not be 100% up on how Switzerland does things, but most of the stuff you're bringing up simply doesn't matter.
because if you do anything stupid with guns (like walk around the streets with a loaded firearm) they will take them off you.
Again, the situation in the states unless you have the relevant permits, thus I view it as irrelevant.
I did just fix that, you're making stuff up to support a point that is patently wrong.
I'm not making stuff up, you're not reading well. Again, I'm not trying to make the USA into a clone of Switzerland. I'm talking about taking us closer to them in a few ways. That's sufficient for 'more like'. I didn't say 'copy', 'identical', or even 'mimic'.
I think you really need to live in Switzerland before commenting on them as you clearly have no idea what gun culture is like there.
Maybe. I think the opportunities for me to be stationed there are very limited though.
By military personnel, All Swiss men undertake military training at age 20 and remain in the military until at least 30. This is why Switzerland has no standing army, they rely on a civilian militia (that has received military training). These people have gun safety drilled into them.
So didn't the Fort Hood shooter.
Here your credibility goes through the window. A proper gun safe is difficult to open without explosives, it's also bolted to a houses foundations (this is the kind of safe my guns are stored in). You do not store firearms in a $20 safe you purchased from a hardware store.
You're into 'No true Scottsman' fallacy, so I believe my credibility is just fine. I was saying 'Gun Safe' in the sense of what 'most' people buy - the ones available from sporting goods stores and even Walmart. Yes, it's a very good idea to bolt it down, which drastically increases the security, but I remember a survey showing that 90% of them aren't bolted down properly. I'm NOT including ones sold as 'Gun Locker/Cabinet' - which will stop up to a young teenager, and is built so lightly it'll flex during movement, costing up to around a couple hundred. Gun Safes start at around $600, have far more rigid construction and are generally fire rated to some level. Still, there's plenty of youtube videos of people getting them open. Heck, my GSA vault door is only rated to stand up to hand tools for several hours.
Out in public, perhaps. In a residential area? There's been shootings here in the USA where citizens had time to go retrieve their firearms.
You obviously haven't read the history available about the second. Or at least a very selective version of it.
While militias were important, there was no question that the right to keep and bear arms was to be more about the people, than the militia. You had founders writing it into their basic lists for human rights.
By your argument though, the federal government really should do more about keeping the militias relevant - such as by subsidizing ranges, training, and competition more.
You seem to make the mistake that the writers of the constitution were concerned with unlimited gun rights, when they were really concerned about having a well regulated militia to protect the state
Did you know that the original was more:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
One of the preparers was rather fond of the use of commas, placing one whenever you would pause while speaking the phrase.
Most weapons kept at home are kept as part of their military obligations (hence most weapons are SIG 550 and SIG-Sauer P220's, the standard issue for Swiss milita),
The Sig 550 modified to be semi-automatic only in militia hands is still a 5.56mm weapon of essentially identical functionality as the AR-15. The P220 is a 9mm handgun of essentially identical functionality as the M9 used by the US Military.
They're very nice weapons, but they're still military weapons kept at the home. IE the household has full access to them unless the family is different enough to keep different safes. Even then, most gun safes only stand up to a crowbar for a very limited period of time, to say nothing of what can happen with power tools. If a Swiss militia member broke in the specific fashion of most spree killers, they have everything they need to go on a very comprehensive rampage.
Then again, because so many other people have the exact same training and weapons, return fire will generally cut the problem short. Plus, well, functional health care system, including mental health.
So no, you didn't 'fix that'. Just implementing a UHC system would 'make us more like Switzerland'(and England, Australia, Canada, Germany, etc....)
ammunition is also issued to them and every round is expected to be returned although most of this ammunition has been recalled since 2007. The Swiss are very tough on any misconduct with firearms, such as travelling (transported) with a loaded firearm.
That's their war pack. It's issued in case of invasion so that the soldiers have a guaranteed amount of ammunition in order to be able to fight their way to the bases/resupply points. Or put up guerrilla resistance. As such, it's still the government's ammunition and only to be used in case of war; thus the accounting method. What you don't mention is that it's quite easy to buy ammunition(though you have to show your card for that), with the government actually subsidizing the military calibers/rounds for practice use.
Do you really think that rules against traveling with a loaded firearm would really deter somebody bent on murder? Heck, somebody like the Aurora shooter would be able to transport their arsenal, perhaps in a gym bag, breaking into their warpack for the necessary ammunition(assuming they don't just buy some), then 'lock and load' at the planned location, perhaps in private spot like a bathroom.
But that doesn't happen there. Still, I think there's good merit in the militia system. How about we allow people to obtain AR type weapons upon passage of a military training course? The rough draft rules are:
1. Can be no more difficult than passing any branch's basic training. IE it'd be a race between the Navy and the Air Force for minimum standards on weapon training. Honestly, I'm picturing about a week. That's long enough for most of the nuts to be spotted and washed out.
2. The person must pass the background check, same as entering recruits
3. Physical capability requirements are to be relaxed. Basically, you can't fail on PT performance.
4. All of this is paid for by the federal government. Including a credit equal to a bog standard M-4/16 or whatever replaces it. Or the trainee can just get the gun.
5. Each year, in exchange for membership in the 'registered militia', the individual gets to attend a military qualification course. It's about a day, and ammunition is provided.
6. Gun Safe purchases will be subsidized.
In order for the US to become like Switzerland, it would need to become very tough on any tiny misuse of firearms and more than willing to remove firearms from anyone who even looks at their guns funny.
Like I said to another poster - I'm not actually calling for the US to actually become identical to the USA. At least in my mind, 'Like' still allows for a LOT of differences.
The vast majority of murders in the USA are ac
Source on the Aurora shooting. I'm not going to give him a name. As noted in the article, the theater he chose was not the closest. It was not the largest. It was the only one that banned handguns(at the time).
I've heard about lots of prevented massacres; but you have to look for them, unlike successful ones - the successful ones make the national/world news; you're lucky if a successful one makes the regional newspaper.
The biggest problem I see with doing away with gun-free zones is that the next round of psychos will simply start using bombs instead of guns.
Start? The columbine kids had a huge bomb. Maybe if they hadn't had guns they'd have put the extra effort into making sure it worked.
How do you define "Depicting people"? I've never shot at a 'person' - mostly bulls-eyes or silhouettes. It's often hard to see the holes with full color targets.
Then again, what do you mean "it has"? Some ranges sell supplies - ammunition, targets and such, but most of the ones I've shot at don't, you have to bring in your targets. Many people print their own; at which point you're opening the floodgates. Most ranges have banned shooting at 'realistic depictions of people'. Rangemasters were generally fine when people were shooting at images of 'generic' criminals(paid models for professionally printed targets like what the cops shoot at during target/threat discrimination training), Bin Laden, when a few idiots switched to shooting at images of presidents(and candidates) that stopped quick. Thus the current rage for shooting at pictures of zombies(and animal zombies).
They glorify killing, thinly veiled under 'self defense' and 'anti-terrorism' motifs.
You missed hunting. You want glorifying killing, look up the 'extremist' gun lobbies like GOA(Gun Owners of America). The NRA-ILA is reasonably reasonable in comparison.
Just remember that the lines were set back in 1954, the last major agreement in '68(I think), thus more restrictions is a bit like you giving your ex-wife half ownership of your small business then her coming for alimony - in the form of half the profits from said business(including her half).
Having lived in both the US and Switzerland, while being a citizen of neither, the differences are far, far greater than having a social support structure.
Nice post, but I was simply referring to the US becoming 'more like', which as you say, we're pretty different as is, so there would still be huge differences. I certainly didn't mean to imply anything close to 'identical'.
Switzerland has a love of law, order and putting the community before the individual which I can simply cannot see the US ever managing to cope with.
Depends on the region, I guess. The success of some of the more bizarre recycling programs in California and elsewhere indicate that a fair amount of the USA could cope; that's without getting into some of the stricter homeowner's associations, which can get some bizarre rules of their own.
don't run a washing machine after 9pm otherwise the police may show up at your door
Sounds like a noise complaint.
I would argue that it is this mentality which is what keeps the Swiss crime rate so low, not just because they have strong social policies
Consider the differences in social policies if we ended the war on drugs and turned 'law enforcement officers' back into 'peace officers', cleaned up the slums*, gave people prospects, etc...
Outside of the inner cities, most of the USA has crime rates closer to that of Europe. In the bad parts of said cities, it's worse than Somalia. As such, I believe the fix has to be extensive but extremely targeted.
*Inner city black males at one point had a life expectancy of ~30.
Sigh... Penny wise, pound foolish.
I've read that it costs the government on average a quarter million per year per homeless person. This is between your facilities like your wife's, homeless shelters, police, jail, courts, outreach programs, crimes, etc...
While a state run mental hospital(Asylum) is expensive, is it $250k per person per year expensive?
I'm a 'practical minarchist'. While I tend to eye government spending suspiciously, sometimes spending the money NOW saves more than enough money later to justify it. If having a functional school will cost an additional million, but prevent 10 students from becoming criminals, it's worth it. Without getting into the presumed additional taxes from the extra wages the better educated kids will be able to demand.
Basically, if I got what I wanted government would actually have to expand in the short term as new programs came into being to catch and fix problems before they become problems - but it's going to take a while to deal with the glut of problems our procrastination has allowed to build up. Then, as the glut passes, we could streamline the government and draw down the programs - huge amounts of savings simply by saving prison space, for example. Every person we keep from entering the court system and prison is probably 2 people who can go work something else productive. Green energy or fiber to the home, perhaps.
Ever gone hunting in heavy brush? Every inch makes hauling a rifle more of a pain. A carbine is also handier for home defense, in the sense that "a handgun is what you use to fight your way to your rifle". It's STILL going to be far larger than a handgun.
Given the cost of ammo and guns, if you can afford such, you can afford a decent transport solution as well.
I'll admit. AR type rifles will run you around a grand starting price, and as with most durable goods ultimately the sky(or your budget) is the limit, but they're premium.
I can pick up a .22LR for ~$200. A box of 500 rounds for ~$50. Or I can get a brand new hunting rifle in .45-70 for $500, and ammunition is ~$1 round for premium hunting rounds. If I'm willing, I can load it with self cast bullets(the caliber is that old...), and probably get the price down to 10 cents a round. In handguns I can pick up a highpoint for $200, and round run about 25 cents a pop today.
How expensive is it again?
4.3M members isn't an astroturf organization. The gun industry plays a part, but a lot of it is that we like our guns, and don't want to see more hassle with enjoying our hobbies.
The problem is that the NRA has compromised multiple times, starting way back in 1934. The problem is that it's like you're meeting in the middle, but then you step backwards and expect us to 'compromise' again, going with the NEW position as the new starting point.
I'm willing to listen to proposed restrictions. It's just that I see 99% of gun control regulation being ineffective or downright stupid and people are unwilling to listen to me explain *WHY* it's going to be effective.
It's like how the response to an assassination attempt with a super short .22 revolver results in an attempt to ban scary black rifles. How, today 99% of the gun-banners seem to be concentrating on 'assault weapons', when rifles are used less to commit murder than blunt instruments.
Then you get into the weird things: The AWB increased the fatality rate in shootings. Why? .40S&W? .22lr is still the preferred caliber for criminals). .40S&W(10 round standard mag) or a .45ACP(7 round!) is deadlier than a .380 or 9mm.
1. The AWB restricted magazine size to 10. Before this, the 9mm was the most popular caliber, called 'wonder 9's'. Standard magazine size was 15 rounds.
2. Unable to economically GET 15 round magazines, suddenly larger caliber handguns were more competitive - if you can only shoot 10 rounds, why not get a
3. Since criminals get their weapons from the legal side; they started trading up.(Note: I believe that
4. The average number of shots fired in a criminal encounter is around 3. Not 15, 10, or even 7. 3.
5. The average number of shots fired didn't decrease during the AWB
6. Being hit with a
A potential spree killer can cause as much damage with 100 round as he can with a thousand. One gun vs a dozen. A hundred rounds is a rather light range visit.
From my reading of their laws, the ammo is tracked only to make sure they still have it - and was repealed several years ago. Other than that, they actually subsidize ammo purchase for practice purposes.
I'm not saying that we need to go 100% Swiss model, I just said 'more like'. Registration isn't going to stop a potential spree killer/suicide type.
Fix the mental health system. Train everybody on firearm safety. End the war on drugs. Fix the education system, really work on ending poverty.
Perhaps I used the wrong word; I said "media" not meaning "news media", but more "multi media". IE encompassing news, television entertainment, movies, comics, and even video games. I specifically SAID that the news is part of the problem, where I disagree with the NRA is that games/tv/movies might be to blame. I even identified a specific subsection of how the news handles a spree killer that encourages more(paying attention to the killer's life).
To my knowledge, the only time 'media' has been shown to increase violence is when they show live action "cartoons" to pre-teens then let them play unsupervised. Then the kids tend to imitate what they see on the program with each other, and despite this there's generally no serious injuries from such play; much like 'Cowboys and Indians' from the time when I was a young kid. Much like wild animals, "play" in humans often involves enactments of theoretically extremely violent conflict, but toned down to avoid serious injury. Considering how prevalent violence has been in human history, being prepared for it through play makes sense. That doesn't mean that a functional adult, or even child, isn't generally fully capable of knowing the difference between play and an actual fight/carrying out of the threat.
Since the computer age, violence has actually been going down in the USA. From what I've seen, violent computer game play by teens/adults tends to actually lower violence on average. It's not like schools shootings never happened before broadcast TV, cable, internet, etc... It's only know that they reach such a wide audience. Shoot a dozen kids in a school and you'll make the news world wide.
This is the trap that a special interest group that concentrates on one facet tends to fall into - the NRA-ILA is extremely specialized. It's good at what it does, which is protect our rights to guns. I'll note that way back in the day the NRA actually stood for *some* gun control, but like many things today, there's much more of a demand for a 'line in the sand' type approach as there's a high perception that there's a large faction of anti-gun people out there that want to confiscate every gun, and are trying to use creeping legislation to do it gradually. Still, any time the NRA tries to vary from just protecting firearms and shooting activities it runs into the problem that it's members are extremely varied in views otherwise.
I'm not a special interest group, I invest in other organizations like the EFF and ACLU to help with the other topics; it's just that the ACLU tends to lean anti-gun. The last couple of years has had my views shift quite a bit; I need to research the mental health issue and find a good group to support.
Disclaimer: Lifetime NRA member(it was half price!).
I'm currently pissed at the NRA for pointing the finger at violent media, though they had a point if they'd restricted it to the *news*. Specifically, the making of the shooter into a celebrity, the digging into their life, etc...
I also happen to think our support structure for the mentally ill is horribly broken and needs to be fixed. End the war on drugs, actually combat poverty, treat the sick and we'd be more like Switzerland - awash with guns, but very little crime, not just 'little gun crime'.