That would be why they did the control experiment where they shipped them to other countries apart from the USA.
Which part of "international (as in not within EU economic zone)" confused you? US bound packages go through different handling. Controls destined for only "Europe and Germany" are insufficient. They should have shipped US bound packages from the US.
> Something could have happened in international handling in Germany. Unlikely but not ruled out. A better designed experiment is needed
RTFA (I know, Slashdot). "Having run a series of control tests in Germany and Europe, which demonstrate no such bias, the problem appears to lie in the USA..."
I did RTFA. By "international" I did not mean within the EU economic zone, I was referring to the transatlantic variety. I made that clarification in a different post but not the one above. Although I believe it is more likely the problem lies in the US the fact remains that not all variables have been eliminated. US bound packages would go through different handling. They should have shipped US bound packages from the US.
So international/transatlantic handling of Deutsch Post is also a possible culprit? They should have shipped from USA to eliminate the international (as in not within EU economic zone) variable..
Which part of "the only difference was what was written on the box" is confusing you?
None of it. You are confused, you are failing to consider that people in *both* international Deutsch Post and USPS were reading what was written. Successful deliveries in domestic Deutsch Post do not rule out problems in the international handling.
There's no immediate ROI for fixing these things that don't kill people in droves.
Its more of a big city thing. For example the gas lines that blew up in Boston, the cast iron lines laid down nearly 100 years ago, similar lines were laid down in small and medium sized towns all over the north east as well. However in many of these small to medium sized municipalities such lines were replaced in the 1960s-80s, they were considered old and hazardous back then.
Its not drones. Its bigger governments being less responsive to public concerns. In small and medium sized towns ignoring the gas lines running down the street might cause you to lose an election. Less so in DC, NY, Boston, etc.
*All Packages left Berlin Via Deutsch Post at the same time on 21.11.12 and were transported to the USA, where they were handed over to the care of USPS for final delivery
So international/transatlantic handling of Deutsch Post is also a possible culprit? They should have shipped from USA to eliminate the international (as in not within EU economic zone) variable. That said, its still quite plausible the problem is on the US side, but if your going to claim to be scientific then actually be scientific.
They have identified something which is painfully obvious. The samples in this experiment are large enough to prove that the atheist branding has affect on the delivery and that it only happens like this in the US.
While the assumption is quite plausible, they did not "prove" anything. The control test was flawed. All packages shipped from Berlin but the US destined packages go through different handling in Germany, international vs domestic. Something could have happened in international handling in Germany. Unlikely but not ruled out. A better designed experiment is needed.
And if we took reasonable precautions like background checks and limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds, it would greatly inconvenience people that want to do this.
No. When going up against unarmed civilians it does not matter whether you have 30 round or 10 round magazines. Magazine swaps are so fast that potential victims won't have time to flee or defend themselves. Very sad, but true. The large capacity magazines only matter when going up against police and military and laying down suppressive fire to keep their heads down while team mates maneuver.
Just because you're an idiot, doesn't make it any less reasonable to introduce moderate gun regulations. But, then again, the Australians banned people from owning guns privately who didn't have a reason, self defense wasn't an acceptable reason, and they haven't had a single mass murder in all those years.
And Switzerland has many hundreds of thousands of actual assault rifles and so called assault weapons in private hands. Perhaps it is not the guns themselves. Background checks, proper training and storage... these are things that we should do. However banning rifles and magazines, that is just security theatre.
Access to natural gas in Russia? Not access to natural gas within EU borders? That is hardly comparable to the quantities of natural gas that the US has within its US borders.
How's those lack of drilling permits, and cockblocking of things like Keystone XL working out for you guys these days anyway? Oh right...enjoy those soaring energy prices.
Natural gas prices in the US were pretty low, and inventories pretty high, last I heard.
As for the permits and such... there is quite a difference between being dependent upon your own government, which you can change, compared to a foreign government that you can not change and are at the mercy of. Plus you've moved the goal posts a bit since much of what you refer to is not natural gas.
Pretty sure most of the states are going to beat him to it. Hmm, it's almost like a majority of the population is ok with it. Damn politicians, bending to their whims.
OK, with what, banning fully automatic machine guns? That's what many of the people you reference think is going on. That's what some politicians actually claim is going on. That what popular media like the Colbert Report have claimed is going on.
However the truth is quite different. They are proposing to ban rifles that are functionally identical to popular hunting and sporting rifles when a 5 round magazine is inserted into them (note many ship from their respective factories with low capacity 5 or 10 round magazines), rifles that differ only in cosmetics. Hold no more rounds than normal rifles, shoot no faster, shoot the same ammunition, etc.
Do you really think an ignorant public supporting legislation that is intentionally being misrepresented is contradicting the GP's suggestion of gun control being forced, it actually seems to be supporting the GP. The misrepresentation being the mechanism by which the government subverts the system.
You realize that a decade ago, europe had access to cheap CNG too. And now it doesn't.
Access to natural gas in Russia? Not access to natural gas within EU borders? That is hardly comparable to the quantities of natural gas that the US has within its US borders.
I believe the Resident Evil series uses more generic names (or at least it used to). Goldeneye 007 (N64) is a good example of a game that uses similar-sounding names, such as PP7 instead of PPK.
Resident Evil is set in a Sci Fi universe, it is not trying to portray an actual historical setting.
So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons.
Weapons that could take down a helicopter gunship?
Actually, yes. One guy had an RPG.
However that does not really matter. The helicopter was out there to protect ground troops. There had just been a firefight between insurgents and US troops in that area.
A film based on the actual events surrounding Wikileaks could have been compelling material.
And the unedited helicopter gunship video that brought wikileaks mainstream attention would have been compelling material too. Unfortunately wikileaks saw an opportunity to get the press attention that they desired and to further the political agenda that they desired. So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons. The journalists walking around with armed insurgents was an inconvenient truth for their narrative. An inaccurate portrayal of wikileaks is fitting since they were are all about inaccurate portrayal as well. All the leaks that fit their agenda and politics, none that do not.
The idea to anonymously leak info to the press is a good idea. Wikileaks/Assange was the wrong group/person to lead that effort. They/he have set back an otherwise good idea.
We used to call them "Wall Street Bankers", but then the Tea Party arose and convinced people (perhaps with the aid of a new source of funds) that WS wasn't the real problem.
Actually the Tea Party's roots are in reigning in gov't spending. It was in fact an organic grass roots movement. They went after Bush and the Republican controlled Congress when they were spending like mad. However it eventually became co-opted to a degree by the Republican party.
It was Occupy Wall Street that was a creation:
"The Canadian anarchist group Adbusters initiated the protest with assistance from the Manhattan-based public relations firm Workhorse, who was well-known for its successful work on client brands including Mercedes and Saks Fifth Avenue." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_wall_street
And like the Tea Party became co-opted to a degree, though by the Democratic party.
Most NRA members are not expecting tyranny. Sure there are a couple, and the media like to focus on these people because it further's the media's anti-gun agenda.
That said, while the majority of NRA members do not expect tyranny, they do expect a ban on private ownership of firearms. They do expect a gradual erosion of our rights in this regard. Look at NY, a 10 round magazine limit is suddenly too much, now the maximum magazine capacity must be 7. Look at the NY "assault weapon" ban, it bans rifles based on the presence of a single cosmetic feature. The proponents admit that "assault weapons" are indistinguishable from regular hunting on sporting rifles from a technical perspective, that the only thing they differ by are cosmetic appearance. Yet they ban these rifles anyway. This suggests that the fear of a complete ban on all semi-auto firearms is quite plausible.
Most members of the NRA do not give a rats ass about "assault weapons", nor do they own one, nor do they have any plans to own one. However they reasonably see a course of action by politicians that may ultimately lead to their regular hunting and sporting rifles being banned. That is why they support the NRA in this regard. They know it happened elsewhere. They don't want it to happen here. They want nothing more than to continue to engage in the hunting and sporting activities that they currently enjoy. The NRA is the only organization that can credibly help them is this regard.
... I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home...
Some AK-47s are semiautomatic only in operation, therefore not machine guns. With a 5 round magazine how does such an AK differ from the regular hunting or sporting semi-auto rifle?
If someone put a 30 round magazine into the hunting or sporting rifle how does it differ from an "assault weapon"?
This second part is of particular importance. This is how the ban will eventually expand to include nearly all semi-auto firearms. Look at the legislation about to be passed in NY. One cosmetic characteristic will define a rifle as an "assault weapon". At some point in the future of these characteristics will include a detachable magazine.
Also note that the old 10 round limit on magazines is not enough now. Now NY wants to limit magazines to 7. It makes no sense, unless the ultimate goal is a complete ban.
Seriously, a four hour class in basic safety before someone can purchase their first gun would do a whole lot of good.
Wouldn't that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms?
IMHO, no. It is difficult to imagine a person being unable to pass a safety class comparable to the various hunter safety classes that I have had. Is there someone out there, sure, but a statistically insignificant number. I'd wager most of such individuals have some mental issue that would bar them from firearms ownership. As for literacy, the test can be given orally.
Just to be clear I am referring to classroom general safety instruction. I am not referring to any sort of proficiency instruction and testing on the firing range. I don't care if people can hit what they are aiming at. I just want people to have been told at some point to keep the thing pointed in a safe direction and their finger off the trigger.
That first hour that I mentioned was not training to shoot. It was instruction in general safe handling and practices, it was universally applicable. These instructions were valid decades later. These instructions reappeared in some form in all subsequent firearms training that I had. Nearly every firearms accident I have heard of violated one or more of the instructions.
The second hour contained additional instructions, shooting related stuff. Body position, sight alignment, sight picture, trigger squeeze, etc. Thinking back some more, this second hour contained safety instructions as well. Not handling but procedures for misfires, partial discharges (bullet may not have cleared the barrel), piece of hot brass goes down your shirt, etc.
Only after these two hours of instruction did we actually have a chance to shoot the.22 bolt actions made available to us. No rounds in the magazine. Just manually loading one.22LR into the chamber at a time.
While we were closely supervised on the Marine's range there was no need for us to take home anything other than the instructions.
Seriously, a four hour class in basic safety before someone can purchase their first gun would do a whole lot of good.
Gov't can set the standards for safety training and let the private sector handle the actual classes and tests, as they currently do with hunter safety classes.
Wait, you are equating draft,.conscription, years of training, and mandatory firearms checks with a weekend hunting class and no followups. No wonder the gun debates drift quickly off into useless hyperbole.
Much of the military training is not relevant to civilians. A Marine Corp Gunnery Sergeant thought he only needed one hour to instruct a group of us scouts visiting his rifle range in proper safe handling procedures and practices before we were allowed to shoot some.22 bolt actions. My great-uncle, a highly trained WW2 paratrooper who fought from Normandy to Germany thought he only needed a couple of hours to teach me how to safely handle a pistol. After a quick review he was satisfied with the rifle and shotgun training I had received via scouts. That training included the previous visits to the Marine range and a mandatory three hour safety class at summer camp for those who wished to use the rifle range or skeet/trap range.
As an adult I received some law enforcement training. Most of it was not relevant to civilians.
I've also had a few hunter safety classes in various states over the years.
So yes, I do believe that something comparable to a four hour hunter safety classes can make a big difference. The military has to learn to maneuver over obstacles while carrying loaded weapons. Civilians, as they learn in the hunter safety class, simply unload their gun when they have to climb over a fence. In my law enforcement training I had to learn to maneuver from one position to another, individually and as a team, and to engage multiple targets. This is the sort of training that takes an extraordinary amount of time. Not basic safe handling and storage.
Its important to note that in switzerland the gun is issued but bulltets are not.
Ammunition is available on the civilian market.
Civilian ammunition works in the military rifles. Civilian.223 Remington ammunition may be substituted for NATO 5.56x45mm ammunition. The converse is not true, the NATO ammunition and rifles are designed for higher pressures. NATO ammunition should not be used in civilian rifles.
IIRC the number of semi autos in private hands exceeded 1 million.
That's irrelevant to my comment. Whether they are in private hands or not is not relevant to the owner of them.
However it is relevant to my point. The person in the house has access, this person can unlock it, this person uses it... and yet society is not endangered.
Plus I believe only the full auto's are owned by the government, the service weapons. Civilians can buy semi-autos, at least according to wiki. Another poster who is Swiss seems to be saying so as well.
Personally I think the key to this is proper training, proper background checks and proper secure storage
So you are suggesting that government inspections of private homes to ensure proper storage, and government inspection of your ammunition are a good thing for the US? You want more firearms regulations, not less, and you want to base them on a location with very strict firearms regulations. It seems a little odd to me.
I am suggesting no such thing. Gov't can set the standards for safety training and let the private sector handle the actual classes and tests, as they currently do with hunter safety classes. Gov't would obviously do the background checks and give the private sector dealer the go/no-go, which is pretty much what happens in gun shops across the country today. As for properly securing firearms, that is a side effect of the previous safety class.
However given universal conscription the gun owners[...]
It may be nit-picky minutia, but my understanding is that there is near-zero private gun ownership.
Last time I checked wiki that was not the case. This includes having military weapons that are downgraded from selective fire (full auto capable) to semi auto only being available to private citizens. IIRC the number of semi autos in private hands exceeded 1 million.
I understand that rifle tournaments are fairly popular over there.
Th guns in homes are owned by the government...
Even if true it does not matter who owns them. All that matters is that they are in private homes and they seem to pose no threat to society. Personally I think the key to this is proper training, proper background checks and proper secure storage. A low poverty rate and a good educational system probably helps as well.
The argument is not that home invasions do not happen. The argument is that the likelihood of a home invasion is lower than the likelihood of accident when a loaded gun is left unsecured in the home.
Ok, everyone always brings up Switzerland when the US gun violence debate is on. This is not a valid comparison on so many levels.
Actually I think the comparison is spot on, but perhaps not for the reasons you assume.
The reason for having the rifles at home was always "if Switzerland is attacked, you as a militia man can fight your way to your assembly point with your 20 shots of general issue ammunition", which is stupid.
This seems to be a digression. I am not arguing that the motivation for having these rifles in private homes is good, nor am I arguing that everyone should be armed, nor am I arguing that people should be carrying firearms around. What I am arguing is that we have an example where a million (if wiki is accurate) fully or semi automatic firearms capable of accepting high capacity magazines in private homes and they seem to be no threat to society. The theory that the mere presence of such firearms is a threat to society is disproven by counterexample.
Also, everyone with a rifle has gone through military selection (which can and does not accept you if you are too eager to learn how to shoot people with a gun)
This seems to suggest the value of a background check. Checking the criminal background of gun purchasers in the U.S. is common, admittedly there are some loopholes (private person to person sales usually) and these loopholes should be closed. I am not sure if a mental health check is common, if not it should be. All of which can be accomplished without enlistment in the military.
Similarly training in the safe handling and storage of firearms can be accomplished without military enlistment. We actually have a national infrastructure in place to do so. To get a hunting license a safety course is required, these classes are 3/4 general firearms safety and only 1/4 hunting related.
There is a strong tradition of having rifles for sport shooting in rifle clubs
Participation may be less common in the U.S. but we have similar traditions.
There is a very rigid tradition of how and when you load and fire your guns, juniors are taught gun handling and gun ethics in these groups.
Been there, done that in Boy Scouts. In fact we were allowed to use the range at a local military base and always had an hour of safety instruction by a sergeant. This instruction was mandatory regardless of how many times one had visited and heard it in the past. After the safety instruction came instruction in proper sight alignment, sight picture and trigger squeeze. Then under close supervision we were allowed to fire.22 cal bolt action rifles.
Admittedly the above was atypical. However even at regular summer camp there was a mandatory several hour safety class if you wished to use the rifle range or shotgun trap/skeet range during the week. The instructor for this safety class was a state certified instructor. I don't know if this was required but such instructors are plentiful due to the required hunter safety classes mentioned earlier.
In college I went on to shoot in some matches that are sponsored by the U.S. military. The military supports a national tournament. High powered rifle, 100 and 300 yard stages.
... In summary, in Switzerland the owners of all "assault" rifles are all background checked in the vast majority military trained...
I believe we should have required safety training, required background checks and store firearms in a locked manner. All of which can be accomplished quite easily without military enlistment. I think military enlistment is a "red herring" in the gun control debate. The relevant portion of military training is not terribly different than the basic safety training available to civilians. Much of the additional handling training is not applicable to civilians, for exa
Slashdot Mirror
That would be why they did the control experiment where they shipped them to other countries apart from the USA.
Which part of "international (as in not within EU economic zone)" confused you? US bound packages go through different handling. Controls destined for only "Europe and Germany" are insufficient. They should have shipped US bound packages from the US.
> Something could have happened in international handling in Germany. Unlikely but not ruled out. A better designed experiment is needed
RTFA (I know, Slashdot). "Having run a series of control tests in Germany and Europe, which demonstrate no such bias, the problem appears to lie in the USA..."
I did RTFA. By "international" I did not mean within the EU economic zone, I was referring to the transatlantic variety. I made that clarification in a different post but not the one above. Although I believe it is more likely the problem lies in the US the fact remains that not all variables have been eliminated. US bound packages would go through different handling. They should have shipped US bound packages from the US.
So international/transatlantic handling of Deutsch Post is also a possible culprit? They should have shipped from USA to eliminate the international (as in not within EU economic zone) variable..
Which part of "the only difference was what was written on the box" is confusing you?
None of it. You are confused, you are failing to consider that people in *both* international Deutsch Post and USPS were reading what was written. Successful deliveries in domestic Deutsch Post do not rule out problems in the international handling.
There's no immediate ROI for fixing these things that don't kill people in droves.
Its more of a big city thing. For example the gas lines that blew up in Boston, the cast iron lines laid down nearly 100 years ago, similar lines were laid down in small and medium sized towns all over the north east as well. However in many of these small to medium sized municipalities such lines were replaced in the 1960s-80s, they were considered old and hazardous back then.
Its not drones. Its bigger governments being less responsive to public concerns. In small and medium sized towns ignoring the gas lines running down the street might cause you to lose an election. Less so in DC, NY, Boston, etc.
So international/transatlantic handling of Deutsch Post is also a possible culprit? They should have shipped from USA to eliminate the international (as in not within EU economic zone) variable. That said, its still quite plausible the problem is on the US side, but if your going to claim to be scientific then actually be scientific.
They have identified something which is painfully obvious. The samples in this experiment are large enough to prove that the atheist branding has affect on the delivery and that it only happens like this in the US.
While the assumption is quite plausible, they did not "prove" anything. The control test was flawed. All packages shipped from Berlin but the US destined packages go through different handling in Germany, international vs domestic. Something could have happened in international handling in Germany. Unlikely but not ruled out. A better designed experiment is needed.
And if we took reasonable precautions like background checks and limited magazine size to no more than 10 rounds, it would greatly inconvenience people that want to do this.
No. When going up against unarmed civilians it does not matter whether you have 30 round or 10 round magazines. Magazine swaps are so fast that potential victims won't have time to flee or defend themselves. Very sad, but true. The large capacity magazines only matter when going up against police and military and laying down suppressive fire to keep their heads down while team mates maneuver.
Just because you're an idiot, doesn't make it any less reasonable to introduce moderate gun regulations. But, then again, the Australians banned people from owning guns privately who didn't have a reason, self defense wasn't an acceptable reason, and they haven't had a single mass murder in all those years.
And Switzerland has many hundreds of thousands of actual assault rifles and so called assault weapons in private hands. Perhaps it is not the guns themselves. Background checks, proper training and storage ... these are things that we should do. However banning rifles and magazines, that is just security theatre.
Access to natural gas in Russia? Not access to natural gas within EU borders? That is hardly comparable to the quantities of natural gas that the US has within its US borders.
How's those lack of drilling permits, and cockblocking of things like Keystone XL working out for you guys these days anyway? Oh right...enjoy those soaring energy prices.
Natural gas prices in the US were pretty low, and inventories pretty high, last I heard.
... there is quite a difference between being dependent upon your own government, which you can change, compared to a foreign government that you can not change and are at the mercy of. Plus you've moved the goal posts a bit since much of what you refer to is not natural gas.
As for the permits and such
Uh, no.
Colorado's proposed legislation is limiting magazines to 15 for rifles, 8 for shotguns. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/us/gun-control-laws-clear-initial-hurdle-in-colorado.html?_r=0 Maybe it's you who needs to stop misrepresenting?
I'm referring to the proposed federal legislation. The various references to the President in this thread should have given you a clue.
Pretty sure most of the states are going to beat him to it. Hmm, it's almost like a majority of the population is ok with it. Damn politicians, bending to their whims.
OK, with what, banning fully automatic machine guns? That's what many of the people you reference think is going on. That's what some politicians actually claim is going on. That what popular media like the Colbert Report have claimed is going on.
However the truth is quite different. They are proposing to ban rifles that are functionally identical to popular hunting and sporting rifles when a 5 round magazine is inserted into them (note many ship from their respective factories with low capacity 5 or 10 round magazines), rifles that differ only in cosmetics. Hold no more rounds than normal rifles, shoot no faster, shoot the same ammunition, etc.
Do you really think an ignorant public supporting legislation that is intentionally being misrepresented is contradicting the GP's suggestion of gun control being forced, it actually seems to be supporting the GP. The misrepresentation being the mechanism by which the government subverts the system.
You realize that a decade ago, europe had access to cheap CNG too. And now it doesn't.
Access to natural gas in Russia? Not access to natural gas within EU borders? That is hardly comparable to the quantities of natural gas that the US has within its US borders.
I believe the Resident Evil series uses more generic names (or at least it used to). Goldeneye 007 (N64) is a good example of a game that uses similar-sounding names, such as PP7 instead of PPK.
Resident Evil is set in a Sci Fi universe, it is not trying to portray an actual historical setting.
So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons.
Weapons that could take down a helicopter gunship?
Actually, yes. One guy had an RPG.
However that does not really matter. The helicopter was out there to protect ground troops. There had just been a firefight between insurgents and US troops in that area.
A film based on the actual events surrounding Wikileaks could have been compelling material.
And the unedited helicopter gunship video that brought wikileaks mainstream attention would have been compelling material too. Unfortunately wikileaks saw an opportunity to get the press attention that they desired and to further the political agenda that they desired. So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons. The journalists walking around with armed insurgents was an inconvenient truth for their narrative. An inaccurate portrayal of wikileaks is fitting since they were are all about inaccurate portrayal as well. All the leaks that fit their agenda and politics, none that do not.
The idea to anonymously leak info to the press is a good idea. Wikileaks/Assange was the wrong group/person to lead that effort. They/he have set back an otherwise good idea.
We used to call them "Wall Street Bankers", but then the Tea Party arose and convinced people (perhaps with the aid of a new source of funds) that WS wasn't the real problem.
Actually the Tea Party's roots are in reigning in gov't spending. It was in fact an organic grass roots movement. They went after Bush and the Republican controlled Congress when they were spending like mad. However it eventually became co-opted to a degree by the Republican party.
It was Occupy Wall Street that was a creation:
"The Canadian anarchist group Adbusters initiated the protest with assistance from the Manhattan-based public relations firm Workhorse, who was well-known for its successful work on client brands including Mercedes and Saks Fifth Avenue."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_wall_street
And like the Tea Party became co-opted to a degree, though by the Democratic party.
I am afraid of people in the NRA owning guns.
Most NRA members are not expecting tyranny. Sure there are a couple, and the media like to focus on these people because it further's the media's anti-gun agenda.
That said, while the majority of NRA members do not expect tyranny, they do expect a ban on private ownership of firearms. They do expect a gradual erosion of our rights in this regard. Look at NY, a 10 round magazine limit is suddenly too much, now the maximum magazine capacity must be 7. Look at the NY "assault weapon" ban, it bans rifles based on the presence of a single cosmetic feature. The proponents admit that "assault weapons" are indistinguishable from regular hunting on sporting rifles from a technical perspective, that the only thing they differ by are cosmetic appearance. Yet they ban these rifles anyway. This suggests that the fear of a complete ban on all semi-auto firearms is quite plausible.
Most members of the NRA do not give a rats ass about "assault weapons", nor do they own one, nor do they have any plans to own one. However they reasonably see a course of action by politicians that may ultimately lead to their regular hunting and sporting rifles being banned. That is why they support the NRA in this regard. They know it happened elsewhere. They don't want it to happen here. They want nothing more than to continue to engage in the hunting and sporting activities that they currently enjoy. The NRA is the only organization that can credibly help them is this regard.
... I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home ...
Some AK-47s are semiautomatic only in operation, therefore not machine guns. With a 5 round magazine how does such an AK differ from the regular hunting or sporting semi-auto rifle?
If someone put a 30 round magazine into the hunting or sporting rifle how does it differ from an "assault weapon"?
This second part is of particular importance. This is how the ban will eventually expand to include nearly all semi-auto firearms. Look at the legislation about to be passed in NY. One cosmetic characteristic will define a rifle as an "assault weapon". At some point in the future of these characteristics will include a detachable magazine.
Also note that the old 10 round limit on magazines is not enough now. Now NY wants to limit magazines to 7. It makes no sense, unless the ultimate goal is a complete ban.
Seriously, a four hour class in basic safety before someone can purchase their first gun would do a whole lot of good.
Wouldn't that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms?
IMHO, no. It is difficult to imagine a person being unable to pass a safety class comparable to the various hunter safety classes that I have had. Is there someone out there, sure, but a statistically insignificant number. I'd wager most of such individuals have some mental issue that would bar them from firearms ownership. As for literacy, the test can be given orally.
Just to be clear I am referring to classroom general safety instruction. I am not referring to any sort of proficiency instruction and testing on the firing range. I don't care if people can hit what they are aiming at. I just want people to have been told at some point to keep the thing pointed in a safe direction and their finger off the trigger.
That first hour that I mentioned was not training to shoot. It was instruction in general safe handling and practices, it was universally applicable. These instructions were valid decades later. These instructions reappeared in some form in all subsequent firearms training that I had. Nearly every firearms accident I have heard of violated one or more of the instructions.
.22 bolt actions made available to us. No rounds in the magazine. Just manually loading one .22LR into the chamber at a time.
The second hour contained additional instructions, shooting related stuff. Body position, sight alignment, sight picture, trigger squeeze, etc. Thinking back some more, this second hour contained safety instructions as well. Not handling but procedures for misfires, partial discharges (bullet may not have cleared the barrel), piece of hot brass goes down your shirt, etc.
Only after these two hours of instruction did we actually have a chance to shoot the
While we were closely supervised on the Marine's range there was no need for us to take home anything other than the instructions.
Seriously, a four hour class in basic safety before someone can purchase their first gun would do a whole lot of good.
Gov't can set the standards for safety training and let the private sector handle the actual classes and tests, as they currently do with hunter safety classes.
Wait, you are equating draft,.conscription, years of training, and mandatory firearms checks with a weekend hunting class and no followups. No wonder the gun debates drift quickly off into useless hyperbole.
Much of the military training is not relevant to civilians. A Marine Corp Gunnery Sergeant thought he only needed one hour to instruct a group of us scouts visiting his rifle range in proper safe handling procedures and practices before we were allowed to shoot some .22 bolt actions. My great-uncle, a highly trained WW2 paratrooper who fought from Normandy to Germany thought he only needed a couple of hours to teach me how to safely handle a pistol. After a quick review he was satisfied with the rifle and shotgun training I had received via scouts. That training included the previous visits to the Marine range and a mandatory three hour safety class at summer camp for those who wished to use the rifle range or skeet/trap range.
As an adult I received some law enforcement training. Most of it was not relevant to civilians.
I've also had a few hunter safety classes in various states over the years.
So yes, I do believe that something comparable to a four hour hunter safety classes can make a big difference. The military has to learn to maneuver over obstacles while carrying loaded weapons. Civilians, as they learn in the hunter safety class, simply unload their gun when they have to climb over a fence. In my law enforcement training I had to learn to maneuver from one position to another, individually and as a team, and to engage multiple targets. This is the sort of training that takes an extraordinary amount of time. Not basic safe handling and storage.
Its important to note that in switzerland the gun is issued but bulltets are not.
Ammunition is available on the civilian market.
.223 Remington ammunition may be substituted for NATO 5.56x45mm ammunition. The converse is not true, the NATO ammunition and rifles are designed for higher pressures. NATO ammunition should not be used in civilian rifles.
Civilian ammunition works in the military rifles. Civilian
IIRC the number of semi autos in private hands exceeded 1 million.
That's irrelevant to my comment. Whether they are in private hands or not is not relevant to the owner of them.
However it is relevant to my point. The person in the house has access, this person can unlock it, this person uses it ... and yet society is not endangered.
Plus I believe only the full auto's are owned by the government, the service weapons. Civilians can buy semi-autos, at least according to wiki. Another poster who is Swiss seems to be saying so as well.
Personally I think the key to this is proper training, proper background checks and proper secure storage
So you are suggesting that government inspections of private homes to ensure proper storage, and government inspection of your ammunition are a good thing for the US? You want more firearms regulations, not less, and you want to base them on a location with very strict firearms regulations. It seems a little odd to me.
I am suggesting no such thing. Gov't can set the standards for safety training and let the private sector handle the actual classes and tests, as they currently do with hunter safety classes. Gov't would obviously do the background checks and give the private sector dealer the go/no-go, which is pretty much what happens in gun shops across the country today. As for properly securing firearms, that is a side effect of the previous safety class.
However given universal conscription the gun owners[...]
It may be nit-picky minutia, but my understanding is that there is near-zero private gun ownership.
Last time I checked wiki that was not the case. This includes having military weapons that are downgraded from selective fire (full auto capable) to semi auto only being available to private citizens. IIRC the number of semi autos in private hands exceeded 1 million.
I understand that rifle tournaments are fairly popular over there.
Th guns in homes are owned by the government ...
Even if true it does not matter who owns them. All that matters is that they are in private homes and they seem to pose no threat to society. Personally I think the key to this is proper training, proper background checks and proper secure storage. A low poverty rate and a good educational system probably helps as well.
The argument is not that home invasions do not happen. The argument is that the likelihood of a home invasion is lower than the likelihood of accident when a loaded gun is left unsecured in the home.
Ok, everyone always brings up Switzerland when the US gun violence debate is on. This is not a valid comparison on so many levels.
Actually I think the comparison is spot on, but perhaps not for the reasons you assume.
The reason for having the rifles at home was always "if Switzerland is attacked, you as a militia man can fight your way to your assembly point with your 20 shots of general issue ammunition", which is stupid.
This seems to be a digression. I am not arguing that the motivation for having these rifles in private homes is good, nor am I arguing that everyone should be armed, nor am I arguing that people should be carrying firearms around. What I am arguing is that we have an example where a million (if wiki is accurate) fully or semi automatic firearms capable of accepting high capacity magazines in private homes and they seem to be no threat to society. The theory that the mere presence of such firearms is a threat to society is disproven by counterexample.
Also, everyone with a rifle has gone through military selection (which can and does not accept you if you are too eager to learn how to shoot people with a gun)
This seems to suggest the value of a background check. Checking the criminal background of gun purchasers in the U.S. is common, admittedly there are some loopholes (private person to person sales usually) and these loopholes should be closed. I am not sure if a mental health check is common, if not it should be. All of which can be accomplished without enlistment in the military.
Similarly training in the safe handling and storage of firearms can be accomplished without military enlistment. We actually have a national infrastructure in place to do so. To get a hunting license a safety course is required, these classes are 3/4 general firearms safety and only 1/4 hunting related.
There is a strong tradition of having rifles for sport shooting in rifle clubs
Participation may be less common in the U.S. but we have similar traditions.
There is a very rigid tradition of how and when you load and fire your guns, juniors are taught gun handling and gun ethics in these groups.
Been there, done that in Boy Scouts. In fact we were allowed to use the range at a local military base and always had an hour of safety instruction by a sergeant. This instruction was mandatory regardless of how many times one had visited and heard it in the past. After the safety instruction came instruction in proper sight alignment, sight picture and trigger squeeze. Then under close supervision we were allowed to fire .22 cal bolt action rifles.
Admittedly the above was atypical. However even at regular summer camp there was a mandatory several hour safety class if you wished to use the rifle range or shotgun trap/skeet range during the week. The instructor for this safety class was a state certified instructor. I don't know if this was required but such instructors are plentiful due to the required hunter safety classes mentioned earlier.
In college I went on to shoot in some matches that are sponsored by the U.S. military. The military supports a national tournament. High powered rifle, 100 and 300 yard stages.
... In summary, in Switzerland the owners of all "assault" rifles are all background checked in the vast majority military trained ...
I believe we should have required safety training, required background checks and store firearms in a locked manner. All of which can be accomplished quite easily without military enlistment. I think military enlistment is a "red herring" in the gun control debate. The relevant portion of military training is not terribly different than the basic safety training available to civilians. Much of the additional handling training is not applicable to civilians, for exa