Why? What do you know about Switzerland that I don't?
Sure, the countries are different, but they also have plenty in common. It's not like I was comparing the US to China.
One of the things they have in common is allowing regular people to own guns, and one of their differences is how they go about it.

The very fact that you consider handing them to children more or less fine, and that some of your friends collect them shows that you don't take guns seriously enough, imo. Obviously, toys was an exaggeration, but would you consider showing a kid how to drive at 8, in case he thinks the car is a toy? No, instead you just keep the keys on you or lock them in some safe place.
In the same way, guns should just be kept out of children's reach, ideally in a gun safe.


Yeah...
You know, if we applied that kind of reasoning to everything, we'd never get any change done. Just because there hasn't been any gun control in 200 years, there are lots of guns on the market already, and gun owners will resist giving up their arsenals, is no reason to give up.
After all, the more you delay stopping any random guy from owning as many guns as he wants, the harder it will be to be to change things. And you'll get stuck with hoping you or any of your friends or family don't get killed by some random madman with a gun he shouldn't have, instead of being reasonably sure it won't happen, as in Europe.

As for making gun training easier to get, I agree with that. In fact, I think such training should be mandatory and given by the police, the army and the National Guard.

Actually adequate gun laws probably would likely have prevented it.
First, the mother would have only owned 1 gun, and only if she could have proved to be responsible with it. That training would have emphasized locking away your guns when not using or cleaning it, so the son might not even have been able to get hold of it if the gun was in a safe.
Second, she wouldn't have been allowed to take the guy responsible to gun ranges when he was a kid, as it's widely reported she did. I don't know if such familiarity was a factor in that guy snapping, but he might not have killed so many anyway.

The main way to prevent maniacs from owning guns (or at least getting new ones) is to treat everyone as a potential maniac and not let them own that kind of weapon unless the prove otherwise through training.


Why would things be simpler in small countries? Again, what would you know about Switzerland that makes you think the US are so different? They're not aliens, you know, the Swiss have certainly lots of things in common with many Americans.

And I agree that gun laws would amount to more control by the state, which is annoying, but it's the only way to make incidents like the one that just happened rarer.
It's not psychopaths that are the problem, it's ordinary people who snap and go out to take their anger out on other people. Unfortunately in America such people find it way too easy to kill lots of people instead of just hurting a few, because they have easy access to weapons that are very efficient at killing people.

Not sure how to do the fancy quote seperating=)

Now...did I say I would hand a gun to a kid...NO...I said I know some that do it for gun safety as they have guns in there house to prevent there own kid shooting themselves in the head. Of course I live in the Southeastern US, so it is fairly common for hunters to train there children so they know they are not TOYS and accidently kill themselves. Now of course these same people keep there guns locked up in safes so it is a second precaution. It is not like they walk into the gun range and hand them a gun...also did I say i AGREE with it...no but if they are playing it safe then so be it. In fact I am pretty sure it is a small percentage of gun owners that actually do this.


The reason I said it is harder to compare Switzerland to the United States in this regard...is because of the population...to be honest...if you tried to take away guns from gun owners in America you would most likely be looking at another Civil War...it is that ingrained into people's nature...god forbid you try that shit in Texas....

Also, just too point out...Texas as probably the least state gun control restrictions in the United States...and it is one of the safer states because the majority of the population not only own guns but carry them. Wierd...but it works for them...it would also be one of the first states to leave the Union if we tried to take guns away...


Now to clairfy again...I do not own any weapons in my house, I served in the military for 6 years and had plenty of experience with an AR15. However, I personally do not like guns myself and do not want them in my house. Can you get rid of weapons in the United States...highly doubtful....would that prevent crime...no...it only takes ONE gun to go on a shooting spree...

Also the United States has been slowly eliminating automatic weapons for a long time, but its fairly easy to get them into the US to begin with....


Like I said, i would love for more people to be trained, and for a better outcome...maybe I am pessimistic...but I do not see that happening here. However, I am sure something will change in the near future...automatic weapons should definitely be further restricted...but good luck with that.

In few words, everything and enough said.

I've been saying a similar thing to legalize carrying atom bombs. :p

You do the quote separating the same way you quote normally. Except that you type quote_postx between square brackets, with x being the number of the post you want to quote, before any passage you want to respond to specifically. Then type /quote between square brackets after each of those passage.
And you type your answer after each of those quoted passages.


The allusion to people letting kids use guns is because in the news post I saw, it was stated that the guy responsible used to often go to the shooting range with his mother and brother when he was a kid, as some kind of fun weekend outing, and that just struck me as all kinds of wrong.

I guess most parents who are gun owners are more responsible than that, and I'm sorry for assuming your friends weren't.
But I'll admit I don't quite understand the thinking behind a child not being mature enough to drink alcohol, or drive, or have sex, and yet being mature enough to shoot a gun, which is after all far more dangerous than any of those other things.

And I agree that taking guns away from many gun owners would be next to impossible. FYI, it would also be next to impossible in Switzerland as well, from what I know, and for the same reasons. But at least making sure gun owners are properly trained shouldn't be.

And trying to shift public opinion so that owning a gun would become less of a right, and more of a privilege with clear limits should be possible, although it will take a long time and need enough publicity to counter the NRA's postive spin.

After all, it worked for cigarettes, just look at the public attitude towards tobacco 50 years ago and now.

Well, he said maybe ( and this means mostly). Of course not all of the cases fit here, since there are infinite factors influencing. But, repeat, significant amount of the trouble could be solved by parents paying a bit more of attention.
Frankly, usaers should think carefully about their "gun praise"...
I know that was ironic, but Switzerland is not USA, and you understand the differences. BTW, in Switzerland every adult has a weapon since they don´t have regular army and all of them receive weapon training from the own goverment state, must be recycling after periods of time and any use of the gun must be justified.

It´s not shameful or whatever admiting that. Applies to me too. Violence is one of the survival mechs developed by the human. Since actually we don´t need to use that frequently as in the rock ages, is good unload that in videogames for example, since you can recognize what is reality and what is simulation.
Illegal weapons are much easier to acquire if there are lots of weapons on market already, illegal or not.

I don't mean to be (too)rude but why is it that almost everyone here replying from somewhere in Europe act like guns are the greatest evil ever known to mankind & that no one(civilians, I mean) should ever own one or needs to own one? And why is it that many of the same people seem to paint all Americans in the same light as those who own automatic rifles(AKA militants and fringe individuals)?

All in all it's getting old and somewhat tiring.

But we MUST DO B BEFORE A. Really, think about you wrote: which demands less effort, wealth and time? Cover healthy mental and social behavior for everybody or just getting rid of the weapons first? Do B first and A later.
If it´s hard to get a weapon, less killing spree will occur. hard get a weapon desestimulates that. Of course if someone is strongly intend to kill he/she will do it, no matter what. You taking exceptions and putting them as rule.

Agreed, but cutting off the supply of legal firearms doesn't mean the illegal supply will cease as well(or even be severely curtailed).

All in all, banning(or severely restricting) guns is a bad idea for many reasons. One is the fact that it wouldn't stop or even majorly impact gun related crime in the US. Another reason is that it is too severe(imo) a "solution" for the problem at hand(It's like cutting off a person's arm if they have a broken hand.), and addresses the symptoms and not the underlying problems behind such tragedies.

Well, youre out or not? Geeez, "don´t listen my arguing and agree with it > I´m out"

The easiest solution is not always the best or most ideal one, and can sometimes do more harm than good. Also by addressing the short term symptoms and not the underlying problem you risk it manifesting later on in society in other ways.

And as I said several times before, getting rid of guns would just get rid of legal guns. I don't think people with illegal guns would tell anyone about them or give them up, and people would still smuggle more into the country anyways.
----------------------------
If you think that banning or limiting legal gun ownership will make it noticeably harder for people to get a weapon then I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

Guns are not evil, obviously. They are, however, lethal weapons and their only purpose is killing. And they make killing much easier than any other type of weapon.

This makes it a bit hard for most Europeans to understand why many Americans feel entitled to own one. To us, it seems that gun owners are claiming to have the right to kill others, for whatever reason.
And all the claims about needing one for home safety seem ridiculous, considering that most Europeans don't own guns, and yet most of us have never been attacked in our homes.

The only valid reason to own a gun is hunting, and you don't need more than a shotgun for that. Handguns are useless for that, and if you need a semi-auto rifle (let alone an automatic weapon) to hunt, then you're doing it wrong.

Well, I can say what happened in my country. Brazil always had restricting laws about getting weapons legally (besides not being very effective). About ten years ago a plesbicite happened here and was decided to restrict the law even more. Just restrict wouldn´t do much, the smart move was pay people for the weapons they had and was delivered to the state to be destroyed later. Can´t say if the "viloence" reduced, but statics shown that homicides caused by fire weapons reduced greatly.

PS.: Brazil is the 2nd world manufacturer of light automatic weapons, it´s a shame. 90% of the products are export mostly to Mid and North Africa and Middle Orient.
well, I just put priority, not forgeting about dignity human conditions and behavior.

So...never hunt deer or elk? Those require rifles, typically bolt action but semi-auto is not outside the realm of possibility. And yes, there are some handguns that are accepted for hunting purposes, such as a .44 or a .357. Shotguns are only truly useful for rabbit and bird hunting.

Automatic weapons are not able to be purchased legally for the vast majority of the population. Those require special Federal licensing (at a vastly inflated cost) to obtain. That is one of the things Europeans never seem to know or realize.

Also, the whole idea is moot anyways. In order to ban firearms, it would take an Amendment repealing the Second Amendment. Only one Amendment has been repealed, ttbomr, and that is the 18th which regards the Prohibition of Alcohol. It requires a 2/3rds majority of both houses of Congress to send an Amendment to the States for ratification (requiring 3/4ths majority) or denial. The second method is 34 of the States submitting a call for a Constitutional Convention (again, requiring 3/4ths of the States approval). The process was made intentionally hard to prevent just such occurrences happening on kneejerk reactions.

In Disctrict of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), SCOTUS determined that outright bans are unconstitutional and that the 2nd applies to the individual person.