Move to ban rifles at home gathers pace

[[R_H]]

The 300 deaths are mostly suicides with army weapons, and most gun crime in domestic situations is with army weapons

Any stats on the exact breakdown? Like 200 suicides, 100 domestics, etc?

...In 2006 there were 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). The number of aggravated assaults due to firearms has declined since the 90s.

So they don't really care about violence or protecting people; they just have a hard-on for gun bans.

I'm trying to find it for more recent years, but so far all I've been able to find was ones from the late sixties and early fifties. I'll try again tomorrow.

EDIT: I wonder how helpful a trigger lock would be towards reducing domestic violence?

[Coyote]

EDIT: I wonder how helpful a trigger lock would be towards reducing domestic violence?

I don't have a problem with trigger locks per se, but I think they provide a false sense of security. It is possible to put some trigger locks on loaded guns, which means it could still go off-- but you'll probably be thinking, "hey, trigger lock, it's safe!"

If you need a trigger lock, you're better off putting them in a full-size gun safe and closing & locking the door. It also keeps curious children from waving them around.

But it's problematic for domestic violence, because if you feel you need a gun for protection, having to undo a trigger lock as someone breaks in is not a good idea. The thing that makes a gun so useful in such situations is that it is fast and ready.

Domestic violence under any circumstances will lead to the "crime of passion", the death or injury done while in an emotional frenzy. A gun can facilitate such death or injury, I don't argue, but under those circumstances you're as likely to see beatings, knifings, etc. Domestic violence happens in houses without guns, of course, and people who have been found guilty of domestic violence in the past are not, IIRC, allowed to have guns any more (although I think that may be state by state law, not nationwide). Households prone to domestics are not going to be slowed down by a gun technicality; those are much more complex situations that no one law can really address.

[[R_H]]

EDIT: I wonder how helpful a trigger lock would be towards reducing domestic violence?

I don't have a problem with trigger locks per se, but I think they provide a false sense of security. It is possible to put some trigger locks on loaded guns, which means it could still go off-- but you'll probably be thinking, "hey, trigger lock, it's safe!"

If you need a trigger lock, you're better off putting them in a full-size gun safe and closing & locking the door. It also keeps curious children from waving them around.

But it's problematic for domestic violence, because if you feel you need a gun for protection, having to undo a trigger lock as someone breaks in is not a good idea. The thing that makes a gun so useful in such situations is that it is fast and ready.

Domestic violence under any circumstances will lead to the "crime of passion", the death or injury done while in an emotional frenzy. A gun can facilitate such death or injury, I don't argue, but under those circumstances you're as likely to see beatings, knifings, etc. Domestic violence happens in houses without guns, of course, and people who have been found guilty of domestic violence in the past are not, IIRC, allowed to have guns any more (although I think that may be state by state law, not nationwide). Households prone to domestics are not going to be slowed down by a gun technicality; those are much more complex situations that no one law can really address.

The problem is that people are storing the weapons unsafely already, hopefully not loaded, but a lot of them aren't being stored in safes or lockers. I think a trigger lock would go quite a ways in terms of security in those cases. The other reason I was asking about the trigger locks was to accertain (sp) if it could delay that frenzy and use of the army weapon. The main reason why it's now possible to store the weapons in armories is because of women's groups protesting the use of army weapons in domestic violence.

I have a feeling that the use of a gun in a home invasion is frowned upon, because we're supposed to wait for the police! Personally, I'd rather be judged by however many people make up a jury here than end up injured or in a coffin.

[Aratech]

Aren't certain types of hunting rifle actually more powerful than military weapons? Anything designed to stop big game would almost certainly ruin the day of a puny human.

Some rifles, sure. It's why the assault weapon ban in the US is generally considered a joke, given the criteria they use to define assault weapons. Although most hunting rifles have a much lower rate of fire than your typical military rifle afaik. So you'd be less likely to go through a mall or a bank and mow down a crowd of people with a hunting rifle than with something that offered burst fire or full auto options.

Yeah, as far as stopping power is concerned, my old man and at least one of my uncles owns a 30.06 based rifle. That will have just a little bit more than twice the stopping power of your standard M-16 and half again the power of an AK. Granted, they have a much slower firing rate, but if memory serves, they've also got a range that's a few hundred meters more than the two above assault rifles as well.

You have to understand, the average individual seems to know only as much about guns as they see in Hollywood movies (for what it's worth there is a certain moron I've been in a number of debates in over at SB.com that thinks that Hollywood does give an accurate portrayal of firearms... meaning bullets make sparks when they ricochet off of something, and you can actually hide behind a thin plywood desk and be safe from anything short of an anti-tank gun). They see a weapon that can fire full auto and spit out a bunch of bullets and automatically equate it to a machine gun, regardless of whether or not it actually is, and generally think that a weapon's threat to society is directly proportional to how menacing it looks.

[Stark]

Worthless gun debate aside, isn't this just how their country works? If getting a pile of signatures makes something an issue, and it's an issue, that means their system works. It doesn't mean oh jesus the king of England is going to take my guns, it means the system they have in place for legal change is functioning normally. If a majority of Swiss like the idea, all the gun nut Americans are just going to have to live with it. I doubt this is the case, however.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Worthless gun debate aside, isn't this just how their country works? If getting a pile of signatures makes something an issue, and it's an issue, that means their system works. It doesn't mean oh jesus the king of England is going to take my guns, it means the system they have in place for legal change is functioning normally. If a majority of Swiss like the idea, all the gun nut Americans are just going to have to live with it. I doubt this is the case, however.

That's why American gun nuts try to frame the argument from the very start as a question of divinely-established inviolate human rights to defend oneself, because from the start they do not want to concede to democratic principles that there should be a discourse and compromise from the outset.

[Commander 598]

The Great Gun Debate highlights what I feel is a significant flaw in modern democracy: It lets groups of individuals who have no idea what they're doing make big decisions.

[Ryan Thunder]

Since when is military grade = SMGs/carbines/assault rifles?

Since we handed them out to footsoldiers as the defacto weapon of choice for infantry warfare, to put it bluntly.

Then they're military issue. BTW, are you going to address the rest of my post?

Wouldn't that imply that they're military-grade weapons? Isn't that sort of the same thing?

Besides, if you go hunting any of the common game here (in my area it's wild pig) you wouldn't use an SMG or an assault rifle, you'd use something like a K-31 or a Stgw57 (both are chambered for 7.5x55mm). They're surplus weapons, one is a straight pull bolt action with a five round internal magazine, while the other is a semi-automatic battle rifle that uses twenty round magazines. Both are "military grade", whatever the hell that means.

Then get something else? :3

What if you're out hunting wild pig, which is potentially dangerous, and suddenly you come across one. If you have a semi-automatic weapon, you have a quick second shot available, which may be the difference between bacon, or an injured/dead person. I don't know about you, but that's a credible use for semi-automatic capability.

I tend to consider hunting a purely recreational exercise when you can easily go to the grocery store and buy meat that has already been killed and sterilized for you. Do you have a good reason for being out there?

If not, then if it isn't safe, why do it?

[General Zod]

I tend to consider hunting a purely recreational exercise when you can easily go to the grocery store and buy meat that has already been killed and sterilized for you. Do you have a good reason for being out there?

If not, then if it isn't safe, why do it?

That's an incredibly stupid question. A lot of things aren't safe, even with proper training. Maybe some people just enjoy doing it regardless of the risks, or because of the risks, and they know enough about it to minimize the dangers to themselves and those with them.

[Ryan Thunder]

I tend to consider hunting a purely recreational exercise when you can easily go to the grocery store and buy meat that has already been killed and sterilized for you. Do you have a good reason for being out there?

If not, then if it isn't safe, why do it?

That's an incredibly stupid question.

Not in context it isn't.

A lot of things aren't safe, even with proper training. Maybe some people just enjoy doing it regardless of the risks, or because of the risks, and they know enough about it to minimize the dangers to themselves and those with them.

Yes, but you want to own an incredibly dangerous weapon to make what you're doing for recreation safer. Doesn't that seem in the least bit silly to you?

[General Zod]

Yes, but you want to own an incredibly dangerous weapon to make what you're doing for recreation safer. Doesn't that seem in the least bit silly to you?

What seems silly to me is the fact that you seem incapable of grasping the idea that some people enjoy dangerous activities specifically because they're dangerous.

[Ryan Thunder]

Yes, but you want to own an incredibly dangerous weapon to make what you're doing for recreation safer. Doesn't that seem in the least bit silly to you?

What seems silly to me is the fact that you seem incapable of grasping the idea that some people enjoy dangerous activities specifically because they're dangerous.

No, you idiot, I do not have any difficulty grasping that, and if you'd actually bothered to read the exchange you would have realized that. [R_H] was asserting that semi-automatic weapons made hunting safer, bringing up the wild boar (?) example. Which would imply that he would rather have that capability than not when hunting. Because it makes it safer.

If he enjoys the hunt because it is dangerous then why is he countering my assertion that semi-automatics are overkill with a situation in which they would make hunting safer?

[General Zod]

No, you idiot. [R_H] was asserting that semi-automatic weapons made hunting safer, bringing up the wild boar (?) example. Which would imply that he would rather have that capability than not when hunting. Because it makes it safer.

If he enjoys the hunt because it is dangerous then why is he countering my assertion that semi-automatics are overkill with a situation in which they would make hunting safer?

Because people still want to minimize the risks while getting a thrill out of it. This isn't as difficult a concept as you're making it out to be.

[Jadeite]

The entire argument about what guns are 'appropriate' for civilians to own is retarded anyway, because it hinges upon the concept that apparently private purchases and ownership must be justified to others. If one refuses to acknowledge that as a legitimate concept for debate, then those people have nothing with which to argue with me about, because I don't fucking care if they think I need a machine gun or not.

As I see it, if your neighbor, family member, friend or stranger isn't a violent criminal, then its none of your business what they own.

[Coyote]

Sure, their democracy works, and that is, technically, a good thing. But it also means that the entire course of government can be changed by a handful of special-interest types with no education or experience in the things they are trying to change, and that change is being driven by fear and misinformation.

Democracy working as it should: the reason we still have an issue with teaching Creationism in schools.

[General Zod]

The entire argument about what guns are 'appropriate' for civilians to own is retarded anyway, because it hinges upon the concept that apparently private purchases and ownership must be justified to others. If one refuses to acknowledge that as a legitimate concept for debate, then those people have nothing with which to argue with me about, because I don't fucking care if they think I need a machine gun or not.

As I see it, if your neighbor, family member, friend or stranger isn't a violent criminal, then its none of your business what they own.

There's a whole host of problems with this. It might not be any of your business, but there are very good reasons we restrict ownership of certain materials or firearms. The most obvious one is the level of danger someone presents to themselves or others without the proper training and certification. I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to argue that someone should be allowed to own canisters of nerve gas without being properly licensed and trained by the government to deal with them.

[Ryan Thunder]

Because people still want to minimize the risks while getting a thrill out of it. This isn't as difficult a concept as you're making it out to be.

Right, which has jack and shit to do with the issue of the fact that they want to make their already dangerous weapons even more dangerous for their own amusement. Which is silly.

The entire argument about what guns are 'appropriate' for civilians to own is retarded anyway, because it hinges upon the concept that apparently private purchases and ownership must be justified to others.

What? That's a given, you worthless sack of shit. Yes, purchases of high-powered weapons that you can kill dozens of people with, or anything that carries such risk for that matter, should be justified.

[Alyeska]

It seems to me that this proposal is a solution in search of a problem. I do think that it is going to solve few, if any, deaths. It seems that such deaths are already extremely infrequent and tend to be of a type that can and will occur without the presence of firearms. I do believe it would be better to look at the deaths that occur with these firearms and try to figure out the root cause of the problem in the first place. That said, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with trying to safe guard firearm ownership. It would be unfair and outright stupid for me to apply American standards to another country. There are things that do and don't work over here, there are issues and politics that are different in other countries. I can see a real need for some countries to heavily restrict firearms based on issues they encounter.

[Rogue 9]

The entire argument about what guns are 'appropriate' for civilians to own is retarded anyway, because it hinges upon the concept that apparently private purchases and ownership must be justified to others.

What? That's a given, you worthless sack of shit. Yes, purchases of high-powered weapons that you can kill dozens of people with, or anything that carries such risk for that matter, should be justified.

You know, I've got an idea. How about you just stop being afraid of the big scary guns and realize that if someone wants it to hunt, odds are he's not out to shoot anyone? As long as we're talking about "anything that carries such a risk," we're talking about having to justify cars, aircraft, household chemicals, a good chunk of sporting equipment, gasoline, matches, and several common hobbies among other things, not just guns. Your standard is fucking retarded.

Personally, I have my shotgun partially so that if someone breaks into my house, I can shoot the fucker. Do I want to shoot someone? Absolutely not, but if it comes down to a choice between him and me, I'd prefer to be the one with the choice. Think that's wrong? Well then fuck you; it's not your say, and a damn good thing, too, because unless you plan on breaking into my house, it's none of your concern.

Incidentally, if I were a gambling man, I'd lay odds that I never have to use the weapon in self-defense, and will happily stick to shooting targets and game. But I'm not a gambler, hence the gun.

That's why American gun nuts try to frame the argument from the very start as a question of divinely-established inviolate human rights to defend oneself, because from the start they do not want to concede to democratic principles that there should be a discourse and compromise from the outset.

Divinely established? No. But there are things that the democratic process should not be allowed to compromise. Whether self-defense and the means thereof is one of those things is an open question; I personally happen to think it isn't, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that the democratic process, if left without limits on what it can do, is capable of gross abuses of power and outright tyranny. The democratic process had Socrates executed because the Athenian citizenry didn't like what he had to say. The concept of inviolate rights is essential to a functioning republic, because without them, there are no limits on what the voting electorate and its representatives can do.

[Ryan Thunder]

The entire argument about what guns are 'appropriate' for civilians to own is retarded anyway, because it hinges upon the concept that apparently private purchases and ownership must be justified to others.

What? That's a given, you worthless sack of shit. Yes, purchases of high-powered weapons that you can kill dozens of people with, or anything that carries such risk for that matter, should be justified.

You know, I've got an idea. How about you just stop being afraid of the big scary guns and realize that if someone wants it to hunt, odds are he's not out to shoot anyone? As long as we're talking about "anything that carries such a risk," we're talking about having to justify cars, aircraft, household chemicals, a good chunk of sporting equipment, gasoline, matches, and several common hobbies among other things, not just guns. Your standard is fucking retarded.

Alot of that is justified. A fucking FN FAL carbine (or whatever assault rifle) is not.

Personally, I have my shotgun partially so that if someone breaks into my house, I can shoot the fucker.

That's a pretty compelling argument for why you might want a shotgun. How does this apply to, say, a machine gun, which according to you is (as a private purchase) none of my concern either? Do you have entrenched positions set up around your home to defend it from invaders? What about an assault rifle, which is not only ill-suited to fighting indoors (due to length, this isn't an issue with all of them, however, bullpup designs most notably) but so totally overkill as to boggle the mind?

Incidentally, if I were a gambling man, I'd lay odds that I never have to use the weapon in self-defense, and will happily stick to shooting targets and game. But I'm not a gambler, hence the gun.

Funny you should say that. If I were a gambling man, I'd lay odds that nothing particularly ill would come of you owning, say, an AA-12 or even Frag-12 shells for it. But I'm not a gambling man, see?

[TheKwas]

There's a lot of stupid in this thread, but here are some quotes I think are gems:

"Pacifist organizations"-- the article doesn't seem to go into detail, but there are such people who probably would push for total de-militarization and even be willing to disarm the police because they think that the mere existence of weapons escalates conflict.

Because you don't know who the article talks about, you think it's fine to... make up an extreme characterization and slander them? You, sir, take strawmanning to a new level.

Stupid. A truly determined suicide will not be deterred by the lack of a gun. Are they going to also ban ropes, engines in garages, gas ovens, and sleeping pills, too?

Are only trying to stop the determined suicide risks? Or all of them, including those that wish to commit suicide on a passionate whim? It's well documented that males like to use firearms because they are seen as easy tools of death, and having a firearm around can increase the risk of suicide because other methods of suicide are hard and take more work.

Quote:
All able-bodied Swiss men aged 20-30 are conscripted for around three months and are issued with a rifle. After initial training they are required to do up to four weeks of army service a year until they have served 260 days or reached the age of 34.

Probably the problems that need ot be addressed are problems with responsibility & training, rather than just closing eyes, plugging ears, and wishing all the evil spirits away.

260 days isn't enough training for you?

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Which is pretty much the point of something like an assault weapons ban, isn't it? Reduce the ease with which one can murder multiple persons.

Two things
Three words
1. Clock-Tower Sniper
If people want to kill large numbers of people quickly, they will find a way. Two weeks and the internet and you can build yourself a nice sized bomb. A quick visit to home Depot and you have dozens of way of poisoning dozens. Hell if you wanted any gas station, Matches and gasoline, arson can kill hundreds as in the club fires a few years back.

Notice Ryan said, 'reduce the ease' not 'completely eliminate the possibility'. The question is how much will a ban on guns reduce deaths, not if such a ban will totally prevent deaths. Will everyone who would have normally used an assault rifle to commit a mass killing adopt a clock-tower sniper strategy instead? Perhaps some will, but I doubt all.

To borrow a term from economics, what is the cross elasticity of assault rifles to other killing methods? Are other methods perfect substitutes?

Your logic is basically: We shouldn't bother outlawing theft at movie stories, because even if we do stop people from stealing movies from the stores, people can just steal movies online.

[Stark]

Sure, their democracy works, and that is, technically, a good thing. But it also means that the entire course of government can be changed by a handful of special-interest types with no education or experience in the things they are trying to change, and that change is being driven by fear and misinformation.

Democracy working as it should: the reason we still have an issue with teaching Creationism in schools.

And thus ... hand-wringing by Americans? Hilarious. It's extremely amusing to hear people say that gun control is driven by 'fear and misinformation' when from my perspective that's what drives the American pro-gun agenda. Sadly, people get to decide how they're ruled... damn, eh? Turns out if a majority of your population believes stupid crap that stupid crap is culturally relevant ... who knew democracy would end like this? Oh yeah everyone!

That anyone can say with a straight face that 'gun control' (a term so vague as to be useless) might be necessary in some countries (implicitly excluding America and Switzerland) is absolutely astonishing. The hand-wringing is even more amusing given that I haven't read anything to suggest this has a chance of going anywhere; but the very SPECTRE of a country DARING to change it's laws to move away from American preconceptions is terrifying, damn their system for legal change must be BROKEN!

[loomer]

I tend to consider hunting a purely recreational exercise when you can easily go to the grocery store and buy meat that has already been killed and sterilized for you. Do you have a good reason for being out there?

If not, then if it isn't safe, why do it?

I'd like to point out that for many people, hunting is NOT purely recreational. It often serves the purpose of pest control, preventing animals from damaging crops, keeping down populations in local areas to manageable levels, and similar purposes.

Do you have an alternative for all these reasons to actively hunt animals, and do you not see the utility of reliable, high firepower weapons for these?

[ray245]

I tend to consider hunting a purely recreational exercise when you can easily go to the grocery store and buy meat that has already been killed and sterilized for you. Do you have a good reason for being out there?

If not, then if it isn't safe, why do it?

I'd like to point out that for many people, hunting is NOT purely recreational. It often serves the purpose of pest control, preventing animals from damaging crops, keeping down populations in local areas to manageable levels, and similar purposes.

Do you have an alternative for all these reasons to actively hunt animals, and do you not see the utility of reliable, high firepower weapons for these?

However, how many people actually need a gun for their daily lives. as compared to people who own guns because they like guns?

It is near impossible for guns to be banned in the US anyway, with their ingrained wild west attitude. Which means the only option is to tax guns sales, sales of bullets and gun's parts.

[loomer]

Quite frankly, not many. I'll not dispute that.

(Although I would like to go on the record as saying I'm very much a supporter of private gun ownership and sale, with sufficient government oversight throughout the entire purchasing and ownership process. While I do not want another Port Arthur masacre, I DO want to own handguns, rifles, and fully automatic firearms for the sheer joy of it.)