I said that the Swiss have guns and have a low crime rate. You did not refute either statement. How am I inaccurate? Plus, you are wrong. Officers, medical and postal personnel are assigned SIG-Sauer P220 9mm semi-automatic pistols.
the first part, as far as i know, has never been argued against. you can't very well have a militia if they're not armed. allow me to rephrase: a good and functioning army is an absolute must for the security of a free state; citizens are allowed to own and possess guns it will not be encroached on. how's that
So if you make handguns illegal, and get them out of the hands of the legal owners (this is the problematic part in reality, but let's say you could), where do the illegal guns come from?
smuggled in to canada from the US, as the article i originally posted claims. and so say this is the US we're talking about now? then they're smuggled in from mexico, russia, other south east asian and maybe african countries.
For the record, this is just one person in the Canadian government saying that guns should be not allowed. Much worse has been said in the US but it will not come to pass in my lifetime. You can still own all kinds of guns in Canada. In fact, you can legally purchase several that would be illegal in the U.S. An example would be this Soviet WWII Degtyarev PTRD-41 14.5mm Anti-Tank Rifle Obviously from the picture it is available from Marstar in Canada but it is classified in Canada as an unrestricted firearm. In the US it is classified as a destructive device by the ATF is limited to guns amnesty registered in 1968, and only transferable after passing a significant background check and then only in a limited number of states. What Canada does limit that the US doesn't is small caliber hand guns with short barrels. They are, however, grandfathered in for some users. You can learn more about some of the practical details of handgun ownership from Nambu World, a site run by a female Canadian Japanese professor who owns a sizable collection of WWII Japanese handguns, including some that are restricted from general sale in Canada. I don't necessarily care for the Canadian policy but can appreciate it. Just recently I purchased this .25 caliber Steyr Piper's Patent Model 1909 from Bonham's and Butterfield's in San Francisco: This gun is legal in the US but not Canada. This gun weighs all of 2/3 of a pound is all of 4.6 in. long and (as stated) was purchased at Bonham's & Butterfield’s for $175. Quite frankly, I don't see how it qualifies as a surrogate penis under the simplistic pop-Freudian transference model that you seem to be using, and it was about as expensive as two or three video games for my PS2. In fact, I'm not even sure that the gun will ever even have bullets placed in it. I certanly don't have any plans to go around robbing banks, or murdering neighbors with it. But keep in mind that even though the gun was purchaced from a San Francisco firm, it would not be legal to own in California because of state-specific gun laws. Personally, I believe that as the constitution is worded weapons that would equip a "militia" (i.e. a second tier light infantry or home defense) should be legal. I therefore have no problem with things like grenades, mortars, or man portable anti-tank rockets. You can, for instance currently legally purchase an An M240 machine gun, a Boys Anti-Tank Rifle, and a RPG 7d, or an 81 mm M1 Mortar in the United States. Devices like these have to be registered with the ATF, which I understand as a reasonable precaution when you deal with more potentially dangerous items. When was the last time you heard of one of these weapons being used in a murder or a robbery? Keep in mind it is acceptably legal to register for and purchase amounts of high explosives that would make these items seem like firecrackers. I, for one, accept that under the 2nd amendment, hunting and home protection aren't protected, though I am not in favor of outlawing them. I do think that the government's argument that the 2nd amendment is satisfied by arming the National Guard is a dangerous abuse of the original meaning of the ammendment. [rquoter] Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. -Samuel Johnson [/rquoter] [rquoter] In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer, I beg to submit that it is the first. -Ambrose Bierce [/rquoter] [rquoter] But there is something even worse: it is the first, last, and middle range of fools. -H.L. Mencken [/rquoter] I think that there is a very strong understanding by most people that invoking maudlin patriotic songs is a way to get people to do something stupid. But while I wholeheartedly endorse making fun of bixtexxx, I'm not sure how this has any bearing on the issue at hand other than to reinforce the validity of the Voltare quote that he used.
No. It looks like the UK has a higher crime rates. http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_tot_cri_cap&b_desc=1 Thats probably right, considering we have guns and they don't. I don't get your point. That makes no sense. You can rob someone buy waving a gun at them, or bashing their head in with a baseball bat. Which is more severe? Its probably some of both. The murder rate is much higher in poor inner cities than anywhere else. How about we educate people and allow them to keep their guns.
So a very small percentage of the population is permitted to own handguns? Ones that have documented military service? That does not in anyway disprove that bans on handguns in other countries have effectively reduced handguns violence.
That just says crime rates. It does not say what constitutes a crime. If there are more robberies or acts of vandalism, that does not mean that there are more violent crimes, which is what handgun bans seeks to reduce. Why not do both? What is so great about owning a handgun that justifies the violence and death they cause in other circles of society?
Sorry - I was talking about the US and a theoretical ban here. Your average street gang member is not going to be able to afford a smuggled gun from Asia. You limit the supply and you raise the blackmarket price dramatically. By doing that, you take guns out of the hands of your average street punks and others that commit random violence.
You said that the Swiss are required to have guns. This implies that there is a gun in every house, when there is actually a gun in less than 1/3 of the households in Switzerland. That is how you are inaccurate.
On the first point - I think petty crime is much higher in Europe. But violent crime is substantially lower. On the latter point - it's a risk/reward thing. There is much less risk for a criminal with a gun than a bat, so he's more likely to commit a crime. With a bat, any number of things could go wrong, including losing the bat and having it used on you, since you have to be at close range. With a gun, crime is far easier to commit, meaning more will be committed.
Of course bans on handguns reduce handgun violence. But do bans on handguns reduce overall voilence or crime in general? Switzerland has lots of guns and low cirme rates. Japan bans guns and has low cirme rates. England bans guns and has high crime rates. The US has lots of guns and a high crime rate. There is not a correlation between gun ownership and crime rates.
Keep in mind that Swtzerland has compulsary military service, so the percentage of citizens who qualify is significantly greater than in the US. Prior to 1999 there were no Swiss federal regulations whatsover. It all occured on a canton by canton basis. From the BBC: [rquoter] Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols. This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries. Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives. Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home. Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to. Few restrictions In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not. The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced. Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions. But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection. Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue. Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society. Low crime But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated. Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated. It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation. Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility. From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country. [/rquoter]
From the ATF: ATF ARRESTS TWO MORE IN MEXICAN FIREARMS TRAFFICKING INVESTIGATION ILLEGAL DRUG AND GUN SALES EARN SELMER MAN MORE THAN 17 YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON Princeton Man Indicted for Illegal Firearm TWO FT. CAMPBELL ARMY SERGEANTS AND A HOPKINSVILLE MAN SENTENCED ON CHARGES OF ILLEGALLY IMPORTING AND POSSESSING MACHINE GUNS FROM IRAQ BEAUMONT MAN GOING TO PRISON FOR POSSESSION OF MACHINE GUNS (The excessive use of "caps lock" is the ATF's fault, not mine) That was a quick scan of the ATF headlines. It seems to me that if people are illegaly importing or manufacturing guns when firearms are legal, making them illegal won't do much but increase demand and make it more profitable to go into that business. I can't imagine that there will be fewer illegal guns in circulation under those conditions.
here are some more my gun-loving friend: A real leader faces the music, even when he doesn't like the tune. -- Anonymous Life is like music; it must be composed by ear, feeling, and instinct, not by rule. -- Samuel Butler Music is the art of thinking with sounds. -- Jules Combarieu The whole problem can be stated quite simply by asking, "Is there a meaning to music?" My answer would be, "Yes." And "Can you state in so many words what the meaning is?" My answer to that would be, "No." -- Aaron Copland We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out. -- Decca Recording Company, rejecting the Beatles, 1962 If a thing is worth doing at all, it is worth doing badly. -- Gustav Holst, on amateur music-making After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music. -- Aldous Huxley There is nothing more notable in Socrates than that he found time, when he was an old man, to learn music and dancing, and thought it time well spent. -- Michel de Montaigne Propel, propel, propel your craft softly down liquid solution. Ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically, ecstatically, Existence is simply illusion. -- Fred Rogers, parody of "Row, row, row your boat" on his television show, "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood." Music makes one feel so romantic - at least it always gets on one's nerves - which is the same thing nowadays. -- Oscar Wilde Most rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read. -- Frank Zappa
I don't think you can really compare Europe (and their gun control laws and perceived successes) with the U.S. The U.S. has ALWAYS had a gun culture and it would be very difficult to take guns away from people who purchased them legally. Europe never had a gun culture. It's easy to vote to ban guns when you don't already have them. Plus, with so many guns in the U.S. I'd bet that they'd be as easy to score as coke or pot even if they were banned. Also, it's also very easy to vote away someone elses rights in the name of safety. If you don't use guns then it's easy to say "Ban them all! It will make the country safe!" It's very easy to take freedoms away from OTHER people. Cars kill more people per year than guns do and, IMO, vehicle deaths are more tragic because it's a lottery with regard to whether or not some idiot kills you. In an effort to save lives how about we ban reckless driving by making all moving violations punishable with high penalties and jail time. You speed you go to jail. Anyone here willing to put up with that in order to save 40,000 + Americans each year? See? It's easy to take away other people's freedoms in the name of security. (Side note: I know that cars are necessary, however, bad and reckless driving is not necessary. My example proposes banning bad driving; not driving in general).
