Move to ban rifles at home gathers pace

[[R_H]]

The "how many need x for their daily lives, as compared to people who do x because they like to do so?" argument can be applied to a lot of things (luxuries) that people take for granted. "How many people need cars for their daily lives?". Here it isn't many, for the past year I've used public transit. But car ownership in Switzerland has increased dramatically since the eighties, and the cars here are some of the biggest polluters in Europe.

"How many people need more than 2000 calories...?" Very few, but many people eat more than that.

etc.

[ray245]

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.)

If you ask me to compare the death of one innocent against the joy of owning guns, I think the option is rather obvious. Guns should never be an common item, it should be extremely restricted to as little people as possible.

The reason we allow certain dangerous sports is because of the fact that such action will have minimum impact on the innocent bystander. Things like Bungee jumping and parachuting at the most will only affect the person enjoying himself.

There is no way any sort of regulations will be able to prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun easily if gun ownerships is prevalent. Also, in regards to the self defense argument, a gun works both ways. If you are able to get a gun for self-defense easily, a Criminal can obtain his or her gun just as easy as you.

If the need to shoot a gun is so important, then ensure that people can only access guns in shooting range. The government can increase the funding for more shooting range in a community and society.

Another alternative solution is not to ban guns, but to ban bullets. I'm sure there is a loophole in regards to the second amendment, which only says one has the right to bear arms.

However, given the fact that a gun without a bullet still counts as a firearm, I think it might be interesting if the anti-gun crowd decides to call for a ban of bullets. Sure, people can still produce bullets at home, but the amount of bullets one can produce will only be a limited amount, if the manufacturing of bullets is illegal as well.

This might be able to restrict the amount of times a firearm is being discharged. I believe that such action may decrease the chances of a massive massacre from occurring.

The "how many need x for their daily lives, as compared to people who do x because they like to do so?" argument can be applied to a lot of things (luxuries) that people take for granted. "How many people need cars for their daily lives?". Here it isn't many, for the past year I've used public transit. But car ownership in Switzerland has increased dramatically since the eighties, and the cars here are some of the biggest polluters in Europe.

"How many people need more than 2000 calories...?" Very few, but many people eat more than that.

etc.

If Car ownership is a problem the solution is simple. Tax the cost of car ownership until few people can afford it. It's not about the fact that rich people deserve to do more things in life, but to restrict the damage being done.

Same reason why there is no point in making things like private jets widely available and affordable to the general public.

In any society, people are often too dumb for our own good. If guns is considered as a luxury item to you, then I see problem with increasing the cost of guns. If certain items does not benefit society if it is widespread, then simply restrict these items.

[[R_H]]

The "how many need x for their daily lives, as compared to people who do x because they like to do so?" argument can be applied to a lot of things (luxuries) that people take for granted. "How many people need cars for their daily lives?". Here it isn't many, for the past year I've used public transit. But car ownership in Switzerland has increased dramatically since the eighties, and the cars here are some of the biggest polluters in Europe.

"How many people need more than 2000 calories...?" Very few, but many people eat more than that.

etc.

If Car ownership is a problem the solution is simple. Tax the cost of car ownership until few people can afford it. It's not about the fact that rich people deserve to do more things in life, but to restrict the damage being done.

Same reason why there is no point in making things like private jets widely available and affordable to the general public.

In any society, people are often too dumb for our own good. If guns is considered as a luxury item to you, then I see problem with increasing the cost of guns. If certain items does not benefit society if it is widespread, then simply restrict these items.

Car ownership is already taxed a lot more than in North America. Gas is more expensive, insurance is more expensive, repairs are more expensive etc.

It's all good until you move outside of the city. Quite a big portion of the population doesn't live in Kantons that are densly populated, or that are urbanized. Those places have lower costs of living, but people living there don't earn as much. How are they going to pay the taxes on the vehicles they need? Most of our possesions and the goods we consume in the industrialized nations are luxury goods. The computer you're using, the fastfood we eat etc.

BTW, guns aren't cheap or easy to get here. There are no "Saturday Night Specials", as a matter of fact, the only "cheap" weapons here are small caliber weapons (.22s) and surplus weapons. There aren't any 300USD AKs or 50USD Lorcin pistols, nor are there pawnshops to sell them. Pistols are kept at the club (which you have to be a member of to be able to buy one) and require a permit (valid for three years, one pistol per permit), rifles that have an internal magazine also require a permit (also valid for three years, one rifle per permit) and buying ammuntion requires a permit. It's not a freaking arms bazaar. Purchases done between individuals also require those permits.

[Coyote]

"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.

Did you not see where one of the groups involved is called "Switzerland Without an Army"?
Pacifist groups do, in fact, tend towards de-militarization. While the motivations behind it may be nice, even quaint, it is also childishly naive.

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.

There are as many suicide attempts by females as males, no one gender has a monopoly on suicidal behavior. Males, however, tend to be more successful because males use more "certain" methods that produce immediate results-- gun to the head, for example. Women tend to favor less traumatic methods such as sleeping pills, which give the woman an hour or so of unconsciousness during which there is a chance they can be found and rescued.

But the article seems to imply that if you take away one method of suicide, suicidal behavior will be eliminated. Suicide doesn't happen because there is a gun lying about. Again, it is naive and childish reasoning.

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?

It's not the amount, it's the content. 260 days of rifle firing will make you an excellent marksman, but it doesn't imply that you know how to handle stress or communicate with the people giving you grief in an effective, conflict-resolving manner.

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

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.

The problem here is multiple. First, how much mass killing is done with 'assault-style' rifles, and what is the percentage to other types of killings? What is that percentage correlation to the population at large that have access to these weapons? Killings with 'assault-style' rifles are actually very rare, we have maybe 1 or 2 cases every few years. They loom large in popular imagination because they get a lot of very sensationalist media coverage. Many advocacy groups try to get bans on 'assault-style' rifles by pinning their activism on the crime-use rate of these rifles, but when someone really looks at the statistics, they find that the crime use rate is actually quite low. So it reveals a flaw in their reasoning, and their attempt to push bans come down to sensationalism and fear rather than realistic concerns over crime.

That is why the threshhold then becomes set so low. Basically, if you're going to ban a type of weapon because it is rarely used in crime except for a few sensational and rare cases, why not ban everything else that causes even a modicum of pain but is still present in society.

In this discussion, bear in mind that the pacifist groups want to ban all weapons from the Swiss citizenry, not just assault rifles (military or civilian lookalikes). One lawmaker even said that pump shotguns are weapons that "only a madman" would use, even though pump shotguns are in use by the military, law enforcement, and hunters. Again, it reveals an ignorance about firearms use, employment, and function that should warn any thinking person that this politician has no business determining gun laws.

[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.

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!

I'm not necessarily hand-wringing, so much as annoyed that, once again, political decisions are being made based on stupidity and ignorance. That is the problem with Democracy. Enough stupid, ignorant, fear-driven people jump onto an issue, and bingo, stupid things become laws and nevermind the facts. It is the same with these particular arguments for gun control. A lot of political moves are done based on stupid misapplication of facts and appeals to emotion; and there are many items and issues driven this way. Gun control happens to be the case in point at this moment, in this thread.

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!

Um, no, I'm pointing out the stupid basis for the motivations behind this change of law. You're reading too much into the reaction, I think, although I'm sure there are some 'lol/dumbAmericans' (TM) that are taking this route.

[Coyote]

If you ask me to compare the death of one innocent against the joy of owning guns, I think the option is rather obvious. Guns should never be an common item, it should be extremely restricted to as little people as possible.

But you're looking at this solely through a single application, and that is that guns cause death/violence. You fail to account for the uses of guns that do not cause violence or death, but are used recreationally. Or, the times that guns have been used legally for self-defense, even if they are not fired.

There is no way any sort of regulations will be able to prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun easily if gun ownerships is prevalent. Also, in regards to the self defense argument, a gun works both ways. If you are able to get a gun for self-defense easily, a Criminal can obtain his or her gun just as easy as you.

However, it is virtually guaranteed that criminals will always have access to guns through black market channels.

If the need to shoot a gun is so important, then ensure that people can only access guns in shooting range. The government can increase the funding for more shooting range in a community and society.

But then a gun at a shooting range is worth nothing at all for home defense, and it also negates its value for hunting if you're only allowed to use it at the range.

Another alternative solution is not to ban guns, but to ban bullets. I'm sure there is a loophole in regards to the second amendment, which only says one has the right to bear arms.

Well, a gun without bullets is pretty useless, so it would amount to a de-facto gun ban by turning all guns into clubs. Or, conversely, it would support a thriving black market in ammunition.

There are statutes in American law that prevent applying restrictions or statutes that would act as de-facto "bans without bans". For example, moving away from guns and into selling alcohol or cigarettes, you can't put a tax on them that is so high that it effectively bans them by guaranteeing that no one can ever possible afford alcohol or cigarettes. Or interstate commerce-- you can't charge a tax so high that trade between states is shut down, making it a ban without using the word ban.

So you can't say, "well, you can buy this gun or these bullets, but you have to pay the three million dollar tax on them", because that would basically be an effective ban.

This might be able to restrict the amount of times a firearm is being discharged. I believe that such action may decrease the chances of a massive massacre from occurring.

Do you honestly think that the type of person who intends to go on a rampage killing spree is really going to care about firearm discharge laws? Are you really that childishly naive? BTW, there are already stiff penalties for discharging weapons in city limits. Rampage killers don't seem to care about it. That's like saying that bank robbers will stop robbing banks because the speed limit law won't let them drive their get-away car fast enough to evade police.

If Car ownership is a problem the solution is simple. Tax the cost of car ownership until few people can afford it. It's not about the fact that rich people deserve to do more things in life, but to restrict the damage being done.

Once again, you are applying your personal views of how the world should work to all people. It is a very selfish word view-- "I believe in X, therefore everyone else should belive in X, too". We've been through this before-- you cannot comprehend a world where your experiences don't apply. There are still many places in the world where personal transportation is not a mere selfish indulgence, but a necessaity. Maybe in the future there'll be such a kick-ass public transportation system that individual cars aren't needed, but until that day happens you can't just shut down all personal travel on a whim.

Same reason why there is no point in making things like private jets widely available and affordable to the general public.

Private jets are affordable to the general public!!?? You must be a bank CEO getting a bailout, right? 'Cause I think even a 1st-grader from a working-class family knows better.

Hey, folks, let's all get together for lunch in Cabo San Lucas later today-- we can all take our private jets!

In any society, people are often too dumb for our own good. If guns is considered as a luxury item to you, then I see problem with increasing the cost of guns. If certain items does not benefit society if it is widespread, then simply restrict these items.

You have to demonstrate harm caused by the item, and that the harm that does happen from that item bears an unreasonable cost on society compared to the benefits and safe uses. If the thresh-hold for harm-to-ban is applied evenly, then all cars would have been banned after the first car accident that caused a death. However, the benefits and safe, general use of cars outweighs the occasional harm through illegal use.

[His Divine Shadow]

I'm sad to see such crap affecting Switzerland Switzerland has one of the absolute lowest murder rates in the world, this is a solution in search of a problem as someone said.

[frogcurry]

Given that the current law allows the weapon to be kept in the house, but not the state-issued ammunition... I fail to see what benefit retaining the existing policy of allowing the weapons to be kept at home is. In the event of an emergency call-up, they don't actually have armed militia personnel until they get to the barracks, and I suspect most or all of the other equipment (radios, uniforms, medical equipment, etc) is also centrally stored. Nor would a bunch of armed militia at home have any co-ordination or plans. Moving the weapons to the same site seems logical and probably also makes weapon maintenance and theft prevention much easier.

It calls for army weapons to remain in barracks, a national gun register, a ban on private individuals buying or owning particularly dangerous guns such as automatic weapons and pump-action shotguns and tighter controls on firearm carriers.

Social Democrat parliamentarian Chantal Galladé said the proposal created more security and prevented tragic deaths. "Guns don't belong in people's bedrooms or unsecured cellars," she said.

I've alrady commented on the first one. As for the others;
- Pump-action shotguns don't serve any hunting purpose unless you're a very poor shot or a retard who hasn't mastered reloading, I've had no problems using a over-and-under 2 barrelled shotgun and I get relatively little practice. In the US I'd accept that you might want the ability to fill your house with lots of shots trying to hit an intruder, but the risk of that scenario in Switzerland seems negligible in comparison.
- "Automatic weapons" for private ownership could mean quite a wide range of things, if it means semi-auto capable military rifles then fair enough. You don't really need the ability to fire 3 x 5.56 mm at a time for hunting, and they don't have a home defense role.
- Nationalising a gun register may make sense in terms of centralising the records, standardising controls on new applicants, police searches and detecting multiple registrations or other issues allowed by a multiple of records across the country, although it's perhaps questionable whether that is the intent of those proposing this.
- Finally I agree that guns don't belong in the bedroom or unsecured cellar, they belong in a proper locked cabinet in a place where children aren't going to play, and with the contents out of site. Only a madman keeps a gun in a bedroom, they're the people who create that statistic of being more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.

I'm sad to see such crap affecting Switzerland Switzerland has one of the absolute lowest murder rates in the world, this is a solution in search of a problem as someone said.

The fact that they don't have a high murder rate doesn't mean that they don't have a high suicide rate, and this seems to be more of an issue here. Getting guns out of probably immature peoples hands when they aren't in the right frame of mind makes sense. There is a problem, the question is really whether the proposed solution is too heavy handed or broadband for this specific issue. It seems to be getting skewed towards an overly strong response by some emotional cases of murder.

[Beowulf]

Given that the current law allows the weapon to be kept in the house, but not the state-issued ammunition... I fail to see what benefit retaining the existing policy of allowing the weapons to be kept at home is. In the event of an emergency call-up, they don't actually have armed militia personnel until they get to the barracks, and I suspect most or all of the other equipment (radios, uniforms, medical equipment, etc) is also centrally stored. Nor would a bunch of armed militia at home have any co-ordination or plans. Moving the weapons to the same site seems logical and probably also makes weapon maintenance and theft prevention much easier.

The lack of issued ammunition being in the house is a direct result of the same groups who are pushing the gun ban. In any case, they could relatively easily issue out ammunition in times of tension. Also, keeping the weapons with the militiaman makes it easier for that militiaman to conduct target practice (don't need to stop by the armory sign out your weapon, go to the range, turn the weapon back in at the armory).

Uniforms are almost certainly kept at the militiaman's residence. So would anything else that the government would furnish, but expect the militiaman to keep track of (gas mask, et al). Simple weapon maintenance is almost certainly the job of the individual.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I thought the Swiss militiamen were issued 2 x 100-round drums of ammo for their rifle which were sealed and that it was a felony to open unless ordered to do so by your superiours?

[His Divine Shadow]

I thought the Swiss militiamen were issued 2 x 100-round drums of ammo for their rifle which were sealed and that it was a felony to open unless ordered to do so by your superiours?

Yes and they stopped this practice several years ago. It is still legal to practice using your own ammo though, but illegal to use full auto without first getting a permit (valid only for that day) in advance.

[His Divine Shadow]

- Pump-action shotguns don't serve any hunting purpose unless you're a very poor shot or a retard who hasn't mastered reloading, I've had no problems using a over-and-under 2 barrelled shotgun and I get relatively little practice. In the US I'd accept that you might want the ability to fill your house with lots of shots trying to hit an intruder, but the risk of that scenario in Switzerland seems negligible in comparison.

Thats a ridiculous statement. One of the most common shotguns for hunting is the pump action shotgun. I use one for hunting. I like my pump far better than an O/U, I dislike those so much I have an urge to jump and down them. I also use my pump action for breaking clays at the range and also for IPSC Shotgun, one gun, three distinct uses. Am I retard and a poor shot now (and an bloody huge segment of the hunters in scandinavia too) because I don't want a crappy break action shotgun? I like the heft of the gun, I like the feel, the way it points and shoots and balances. And I just hate break open guns with a passion.

Whats the rationale behind banning pump actions but allow lever action rifles and bolt action rifles with internal and external magazines too because those aren't being banned. If you ban pump action shotguns who contrary to your claims have great hunting value. I mean christ it's just a pump action shotgun, you might as well ban all guns if you are gonna set the bar that low for personal firearms ownership.

The fact that they don't have a high murder rate doesn't mean that they don't have a high suicide rate, and this seems to be more of an issue here. Getting guns out of probably immature peoples hands when they aren't in the right frame of mind makes sense. There is a problem, the question is really whether the proposed solution is too heavy handed or broadband for this specific issue. It seems to be getting skewed towards an overly strong response by some emotional cases of murder.

Well you know where I am leaning on this issue.

[[R_H]]

Given that the current law allows the weapon to be kept in the house, but not the state-issued ammunition... I fail to see what benefit retaining the existing policy of allowing the weapons to be kept at home is. In the event of an emergency call-up, they don't actually have armed militia personnel until they get to the barracks, and I suspect most or all of the other equipment (radios, uniforms, medical equipment, etc) is also centrally stored. Nor would a bunch of armed militia at home have any co-ordination or plans. Moving the weapons to the same site seems logical and probably also makes weapon maintenance and theft prevention much easier.

The citizen-soldiers' personal gear is with them at home. In the even of an emergency call up, it would be incredibly difficult for the soldiers to get from where they live to where the amory is. Whether in the sparsely poplulated Kantons or the densely populated ones. I live in one of the most densely populated regions of the country (the halb-Kanton of Basel) but it takes me 30 minutes to get to the armory under ideal conditions, with public transit (I don't own a motor vehicle). Theft of the weapons isn't all too common, and when it occurs, it's in the news fairly quickly and it's treated as a priority case by the police.

I've alrady commented on the first one. As for the others;
- Pump-action shotguns don't serve any hunting purpose unless you're a very poor shot or a retard who hasn't mastered reloading, I've had no problems using a over-and-under 2 barrelled shotgun and I get relatively little practice. In the US I'd accept that you might want the ability to fill your house with lots of shots trying to hit an intruder, but the risk of that scenario in Switzerland seems negligible in comparison.

Fill your house with lots of shots? What about your family members?

- "Automatic weapons" for private ownership could mean quite a wide range of things, if it means semi-auto capable military rifles then fair enough. You don't really need the ability to fire 3 x 5.56 mm at a time for hunting, and they don't have a home defense role.
- Nationalising a gun register may make sense in terms of centralising the records, standardising controls on new applicants, police searches and detecting multiple registrations or other issues allowed by a multiple of records across the country, although it's perhaps questionable whether that is the intent of those proposing this.

- Automatic weapons doesn't mean semi-automatic weapons. Period. None of former military weapons retain automatic capability (full automatic or burst fire) when they make it onto the surplus market. Those who are still serving don't have automatic weapons, the weapons are modified to semi-auto every time they leave military service.
- Centralisation is very rare, the Kantons have a lot of power in comparison to the Bund (state). Our education systems aren't even nationalised for example. Stuff that requires registration is done with the police in the Kanton, whether it's firearms or residency.

- Finally I agree that guns don't belong in the bedroom or unsecured cellar, they belong in a proper locked cabinet in a place where children aren't going to play, and with the contents out of site. Only a madman keeps a gun in a bedroom, they're the people who create that statistic of being more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder.

Quite frankly, I'd rather see a program that gives or even just loans out gun cabinets (preferably safes) to those serving for them to put their rifle in.

[[R_H]]

I thought the Swiss militiamen were issued 2 x 100-round drums of ammo for their rifle which were sealed and that it was a felony to open unless ordered to do so by your superiours?

It was tin of 50 rounds of GP90 (5.6x45mm) until either 2008 or 2007. That was done away with after a guy used a single round he had taken with him from his service, and used it to shot a 16 year old girl from 50 meters away. In a city. At a transit stop. It wasn't the issued tin, it was ammunition he had stolen. A single round.

Before the Stgw90 was issued, it was even less ammunition (bolt action rifles were in use until the 70s by some units).

You are right about it having been a felony to open the tin without orders.

[His Divine Shadow]

On the hunting angle I would also like to point out again that a pump action shotgun is superior to a break open when hunting from a hidden space or when digging in for a geese hunt. Ofcourse over here (scandinavia) automatic shotguns are more popular than pumps but the same advantages apply for them here as well.

[Coyote]

Actually, shotguns are about the best choice for home defense since it is not likely that the shot will over-penetrate and go through the walls and into the neighbor's house like a high-powered rifle would. You're also able to point in the direction of an intruder without having to take time to aim so accurately, since you'll likely be surprised, stressed, waking up, and have little reaction time.

If there's family members, simple instructions about what to do if an intruder breaks in-- lay on the floor-- will work towards mitigating danger to them. More than likely, though, your family members should stay in their own rooms, if possible.

On a side note, while Switzerland isn't part of the EU, are the different gun laws in the EU a problem for politicians? Do people wander across borders with a gun that is legal where they come from, but illegal once they cross the border?

[His Divine Shadow]

Actually a 55 grain .223 hollowpoint bullet penetrates even less than buckshoot if we want to be technical. So an AR-15 is the ultimate HD weapon, as well as being a really damn good hunting weapon and sporting weapon.

[ray245]

If Car ownership is a problem the solution is simple. Tax the cost of car ownership until few people can afford it. It's not about the fact that rich people deserve to do more things in life, but to restrict the damage being done.

Once again, you are applying your personal views of how the world should work to all people. It is a very selfish word view-- "I believe in X, therefore everyone else should belive in X, too". We've been through this before-- you cannot comprehend a world where your experiences don't apply. There are still many places in the world where personal transportation is not a mere selfish indulgence, but a necessaity. Maybe in the future there'll be such a kick-ass public transportation system that individual cars aren't needed, but until that day happens you can't just shut down all personal travel on a whim.

In case you mistook what I said as a trigger-happy attitude towards taxing car ownerships, I would need to clarify my point. I agree that my sentence structure has several mistakes.

What I'm saying is, when the problem of too many cars around outweighs the benefits, then there should be no problem with restricting the amount of car ownership.

I'll put a more detailed response when I'm free.

[Coyote]

Well, ray245, if you want to get into the merits or detriments of car ownership, it'd be another thread. Either a cold start in OT or find a relevent news item to get the ball rolling here in N&P.

[Ryan Thunder]

Actually a 55 grain .223 hollowpoint bullet penetrates even less than buckshoot if we want to be technical. So an AR-15 is the ultimate HD weapon, as well as being a really damn good hunting weapon and sporting weapon.

Because you totally need the capability to be lethal at ranges exceeding 100m for home defense.

[General Zod]

Actually a 55 grain .223 hollowpoint bullet penetrates even less than buckshoot if we want to be technical. So an AR-15 is the ultimate HD weapon, as well as being a really damn good hunting weapon and sporting weapon.

Because you totally need the capability to be lethal at ranges exceeding 100m for home defense.

If someone can demonstrate they're capable of dealing with the weapon responsibly, and they meet all the government requirements to own it (assuming it's a weapon that's legal to own, otherwise it's a red herring), then who gives a shit what their justification for owning it is as long as they've proven they won't be a threat to the community or use it to violate any laws?

[frogcurry]

Actually a 55 grain .223 hollowpoint bullet penetrates even less than buckshoot if we want to be technical. So an AR-15 is the ultimate HD weapon, as well as being a really damn good hunting weapon and sporting weapon.

Because you totally need the capability to be lethal at ranges exceeding 100m for home defense.

If someone can demonstrate they're capable of dealing with the weapon responsibly, and they meet all the government requirements to own it (assuming it's a weapon that's legal to own, otherwise it's a red herring), then who gives a shit what their justification for owning it is as long as they've proven they won't be a threat to the community or use it to violate any laws?

I would expect that any weapon used for home defense capable of being lethal at a range greater than that of the distance to your nearest neighbours is a threat to the community. Particularly if the laws of your state or country allow you to be charged for homicide or manslaughter for firing a weapon in your house which kills an innocent bystander. Not to mention you don't really want to hit family members in other rooms who you can't seem through the walls.

I accept that I am probably wrong on the subject of pump action shotguns, thanks for the corrections - my (limited) experience of those who own them and how they are used has never been positive, hence my judgement. However I don't see why semi-auto is apparently OK for a gun in Switzerland but not auto. I'd be more worried about someone using semi-auto fire in my direction than automatic, they'd probably be less likely to miss before needing to reload.

Coyote, I don't think its be legal to cross a border with any gun without the right paperwork so that case shouldn't arise, you're committing a crime by moving the gun across the border without registering it.

[Kanastrous]

Overpenetration can be dealt with - regardless of the particular weapon and chambering - by using prefragmented ammo a la Glaser Safety Slugs. Such slugs are darned destructive to human or animal targets, but won't penetrate residential-grade sheetrock walls.

[General Zod]

I would expect that any weapon used for home defense capable of being lethal at a range greater than that of the distance to your nearest neighbours is a threat to the community. Particularly if the laws of your state or country allow you to be charged for homicide or manslaughter for firing a weapon in your house which kills an innocent bystander. Not to mention you don't really want to hit family members in other rooms who you can't seem through the walls.

What part of being able to demonstrate the use of the weapon responsibly as a requirement for ownership did you not understand exactly? Being able to handle it responsibly generally mitigates the possibility of the owner being a threat. By your asinine logic any police officer who happens to keep a rifle at home is a threat to the community.

I accept that I am probably wrong on the subject of pump action shotguns, thanks for the corrections - my (limited) experience of those who own them and how they are used has never been positive, hence my judgement. However I don't see why semi-auto is apparently OK for a gun in Switzerland but not auto. I'd be more worried about someone using semi-auto fire in my direction than automatic, they'd probably be less likely to miss before needing to reload.

Personal anecdotes do not a sound argument make.

[Sea Skimmer]

Because you totally need the capability to be lethal at ranges exceeding 100m for home defense.

Well, jokes aside just about any firearm can be lethal at 100 meters, the threshold for energy behind a ‘significantly dangerous’ projectile or fragment is usually given as about 17 joules, which is less then half the muzzle energy of even a .22 rimfire round from a handgun barrel, about as weak as bullets get. This is why its really really dumb to start banning calibers of ammo or specific types of guns other then those that are full auto, it makes little difference in the end in how well they can kill. Hit placement is what will determine if you die. Bigger projectiles are more lethal, but more relevantly they are more likely to cause instantaneous incapacitation of the target. Very important when the job is home defence or hunting.

People who support banning specific types of guns though, almost always have the true agenda of seeking to ban all guns and simply see these partial bans as a stepping stone. In many cases anti gun groups openly state this as the objective and means by which they operate. Because of this, all truth about the relative danger of different types of gun are irrelevant, they’ll use any excuse or load of bullshit they can generate to try to justify banning as much as they can get in one law. This is also why those of us who support gun rights are pretty much forced to object to any and all new limitations even if we might agree with them.