I always say that this is more cultural than anything else. Americans tend to be more gung ho and are ammosexuals who worship guns excessively. The Swiss have more guns per capita, they are legally mandated to own guns, but they have practically zero mass shootings unlike the US. I’m not deriding American people themselves, I’m just criticising how they handle and view guns. They can do whatever the heck they want, it’s their prerogative, but if one’s rights end with another then that’s going to be an issue. Just relax with the guns and emulate their Swiss brethrens who are self-disciplined about handling guns. Rights come with responsibilities.
The Swiss aren’t perfect, mind. They didn’t let women vote until the 70s ffs. My point being that these kinds of comparisons simply don’t work. The US has a unique problem. But the problem is still solvable through gun control, because gun control can pervade culture, as demonstrated by many other countries.
So, there’s a problem with those statistics; they’re looking at civilian arms per capita. In Switzerland, a large number of the firearms that are in ‘civilians’ hands are military arms. The Swiss–in general–have to serve a term in the military as conscripts, and then have the option of taking their issued rifle home with them. That’s not a “civilian” weapon though. I strongly suspect that once you account for the assault weapons–real, select-fire assault weapons, not assault-style firearms–that the numbers go up sharply. Likely not to American levels. But much higher than they are listed.
Yay! I get to be above average in at least one thing!
Seriously though - the numbers and averages don’t really give a good picture of gun ownership in the US. Something like 40-ish% of US households have at least one firearm. But then somewhere around 1-5% of people in the US have something like 50% of all of the guns in the US (I’m pulling these numbers out of my ass, but it’s pretty stark). If you get into competitive shooting, it ends up being really easy to have a lot of guns. So while the average might be 1.5, lots of people have no firearms at all, and a relatively small number of people have, like 20 each.
Those rifles are transferred to civilian ownership once they are discharged from the military.
Happy to see a source that says otherwise but it’s illogical that because you previously served your gun is somehow “still in the military”. Especially given that virtually anyone is free to own a gun once they’ve discharged.
Up until recently, you were given a block of ammunition for the gun that you were supposed to keep sealed in case of the militia being called up. So you were given gov’t ammunition for a civilian weapon? IDK.
It seems like the numbers are getting fudged somewhere, partly because the Swiss don’t keep any kind of official records. I saw one claim that put the number at roughly double the one cited, so…?
Huh, it must have been an outdated info that Switzerland has the most guns per capita. But still, they have large amounts of guns per person nonethless and yet very virtually no mass shooting.
As an aside, the Swiss women’s suffrage is constantly brought up as Switzerland not being democratic and being late in the modern world. I’m not trying to justify it, but that is always misconceived. Every Swiss canton in 90s but one kept rejecting the women’s suffrage in their local referendums, because that canton is overwhelmingly populated by couple of hundreds of old rural people stuck in their ways. It took the Swiss Supreme Court to force that canton to finally allow women to vote. Because of that one canton, everyone outside of Switzerland thought the entire country did not allow women to vote until the 90s, which gave the country a bad historical reputation and myth.
What I said isn’t a myth though. They weren’t allowed to vote until the 70s. All suffrage movements start and end somewhere and there’s ended later than most in Europe. Over 50% of men in Switzerland voted against women voting just ten years prior to them getting it.
Which lends exactly to my point: if we’re to pick something to judge Switzerland by, it’s something like that. Not misinformation about guns per capita.
Like I said, it is just one canton. People make it as though the entirety of Switzerland did not allow women to vote until the 90s when it is just one canton. It is essentially a myth. I’m not defending what happened, I’m saying it is a misconception and a myth at best.
Oh you’re talking about the 70s. Most people talk about the 90s when that one Swiss canton still did not allow women to vote on federal level, making as though entirety of Switzerland did not allow women to vote until the year 1990.
But sorry to be pedantic (and I am being one because I am a historical nerd and annoyed by perpetuation of historical myths), but it is Liechtenstein which is the last European country not to have allowed women to vote until 1984, not Switzerland.
In any case, voting rights has nothing to do with gun policies. Switzerland is pretty conservative, but it can’t be denied that their gun policies and culture is sensible. American conservatives, usually the proponents of looser gun regulations, could learn from the Swiss. Give credit to where it is due.
But the problem is still solvable through gun control, because gun control can pervade culture, as demonstrated by many other countries.
How likely do you believe it is to bring about the constitutional amendment necessary to ban firearms? To gain support of 2/3s the states in addition to a 2/3 majority in Congress?
That aside, you could argue symptoms could be addressed through such extremes if it were possible to do so, but you couldn’t argue such measures address underlying issues - solve problems.
You could argue rampant media oversensationalism of such violence glorifies it and further incentivizes it to those seeking to commit such a gruesome suicide, but that’s less culture and more partisan wedge-driving and profiteering off ad revenue.
I’m just criticising how they handle and view guns.
How do you believe we view firearms? I’m interested in hearing how we can do whatever the heck [we] want.
Just relax with the guns and emulate their Swiss brethrens who are self-disciplined about handling guns. Rights come with responsibilities.
It’s fortunate, then, that the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible.
Is it really political partisan though? America is the only developed country with disproportionately high level of mass shootings compared to others. Not to denigrate developing countries, but this high rate of mass shooting in US is comparable to those in developing nations, because these countries have rampant corruption and lack of enforcement of rule of law. And the level of violence is manifestation of that. The US is developed one and is put to much higher standard as a result.
Switzerland has 25% of population composed of immigrants. Canada is just as diverse and wealthy as the US and also possess many guns, but still has little to no mass shootings. I’d say it is more to do with cultural approach to guns by each countries.
This myth comes from the idea that there is ammunition paid for by the gov’t for the weapon that you used in your term of conscription, that you have to use while you’re at the range. If you want to pay for ammunition yourself at a regular gun store, you are more than welcome to do so.
Ammo is regulated. They can only acquire them from regulated spaces like shooting ranges. That’s why the Swiss is one of the top at sports-related shooting.
Switzerland is ethnically among the most inhomogeneous countries in Europe. The 59.3 % indigenous population is already split among 6 ethnicities – French, Italian, Swiss-German and 3 Romansh. 39.2 % of the population are migrants.
Only anemic, Vitamin D-depleted Swiss are white. Some other sick Swiss are red, gray or yellowish. Healthy Swiss come in all colors from rosé to beige to all shades of brown to black, the same is true for immigrants to Switzerland.
Somehow you lost the term “ethnicity” in your answer and shifted the discussion to skin colour. Assuming this is a reference to the stupid American concept of “race” – please reconnect to reality!
Skin colour and genetic heritage are completely unrelated to ethnicity.
There are Bavarians with a skin type of Fitzgerald VI and Afroamericans with a skin type of Fitzgerald II.
Until the early 20^th century, the American idea of “white” refered to protestant germanic people only – Swiss French, Swiss Italian and Swiss Romansh people might be considered to be “white” by you, but were considered by Angloamericans to be as non-white as Irish or West Africans for the bigger part of Angloamerican history.
Look, gun politics aside, there is a legitimate reason to have more than one hunting rifle.
30-06 is great for hunting deer, but would be an extremely poor choice for hunting squirrels and raccoons, considering that there would be very little edible material left.
30-06 is great for hunting deer, but would be an extremely poor choice for hunting squirrels and raccoons, considering that there would be very little edible material left.
Tough shit. Learn to bow hunt.
You realize that’s like trying to tell someone to pick up their newly purchased big ticket item from the store using a bicycle, right?
I get you’re trying to limit the use of guns by limiting the availability of guns and their ammo, but where you drew the line is too extrene/limiting.
At that point you might as well just be honest about it and try to make guns illegal.
Nope. Take it or leave it. I’d even consider allowing multi hunting weapons, eg: shot gun season.
But, only one long gun in the home at a time. The other must be stored at an official gun locker place, eg: police station, gun club, gun sales store, armory… Finger print ID to swap out which long gun you want.
I’m astonished that you’re smart enough to remember to breathe, much less able to read and type.
How, exactly, do you think that you get good with a firearm, good enough to be safe, good enough to ethically hunt? Do you have this pants-on-head retarded idea that you can shoot ten shots, total, and suddenly know what you’re doing well enough to not gut-shot a deer? Do you think that 12 shots through a revolver is enough to be competent? Do you understand how ejection systems in rifles work, and that you simply don’t recover all of your brass?
On a short day at the range, I’ll go through about 100 rounds. I’ve been to an IDPA match that had a minimum round count of 120, and a Gun Run match that required a minimum of 50 rifle, and 60 pistol rounds.
Beyond this - what other civil rights are you willing to accept restrictions on based on need? Do you really need to vote? Do you need to have free speech? Would you be okay limiting all of your online comments to just 12, and having to delete all comments before you could post anything new? Perhaps you should have to demonstrate need in order to not have your house searched by the police, or to plead the 5th?
Fuck anyone that wants free speech, voting, religion, or the right to not have their teeth shoved in by cops, amiright?
That is correct; you will not be able to get a tax stamp for an air-to-ground missile, or a laser guided 500# bomb; those are mass weaponry. A rifle or a handgun are not mass weaponry; they aren’t even crew-served weaponry.
“Well-regulated” means TRAINED. That was what it meant when the constitution was written, because the militia–which was all able-bodied men–were expected to muster when called up, and were legally obligated to provide their own arms suitable for military use, and to train on their own. The writers of the constitution explicitly intended for the individual citizens to be armed, and to train. And do you know how you train?
…Beuller?
And you are correct; I do not support any attempts to cut any civil rights, because that’s how the majority gets away with tyranny against the minority. Ask black people, gay people, or women that have been victims of domestic violence just how much the cops have done to protect them.
I always say that this is more cultural than anything else. Americans tend to be more gung ho and are ammosexuals who worship guns excessively. The Swiss have more guns per capita, they are legally mandated to own guns, but they have practically zero mass shootings unlike the US. I’m not deriding American people themselves, I’m just criticising how they handle and view guns. They can do whatever the heck they want, it’s their prerogative, but if one’s rights end with another then that’s going to be an issue. Just relax with the guns and emulate their Swiss brethrens who are self-disciplined about handling guns. Rights come with responsibilities.
I don’t think you mean it to be, but everything you’re saying is total bollocks.
https://prateekdasgupta1.medium.com/stop-comparing-american-gun-culture-with-switzerland-if-you-are-not-willing-to-do-what-the-swiss-do-e3e765189d15
Particularly the part about guns per capita
The Swiss aren’t perfect, mind. They didn’t let women vote until the 70s ffs. My point being that these kinds of comparisons simply don’t work. The US has a unique problem. But the problem is still solvable through gun control, because gun control can pervade culture, as demonstrated by many other countries.
So, there’s a problem with those statistics; they’re looking at civilian arms per capita. In Switzerland, a large number of the firearms that are in ‘civilians’ hands are military arms. The Swiss–in general–have to serve a term in the military as conscripts, and then have the option of taking their issued rifle home with them. That’s not a “civilian” weapon though. I strongly suspect that once you account for the assault weapons–real, select-fire assault weapons, not assault-style firearms–that the numbers go up sharply. Likely not to American levels. But much higher than they are listed.
Dog there is 1.5 guns per american
Yay! I get to be above average in at least one thing!
Seriously though - the numbers and averages don’t really give a good picture of gun ownership in the US. Something like 40-ish% of US households have at least one firearm. But then somewhere around 1-5% of people in the US have something like 50% of all of the guns in the US (I’m pulling these numbers out of my ass, but it’s pretty stark). If you get into competitive shooting, it ends up being really easy to have a lot of guns. So while the average might be 1.5, lots of people have no firearms at all, and a relatively small number of people have, like 20 each.
Those rifles are transferred to civilian ownership once they are discharged from the military.
Happy to see a source that says otherwise but it’s illogical that because you previously served your gun is somehow “still in the military”. Especially given that virtually anyone is free to own a gun once they’ve discharged.
Up until recently, you were given a block of ammunition for the gun that you were supposed to keep sealed in case of the militia being called up. So you were given gov’t ammunition for a civilian weapon? IDK.
It seems like the numbers are getting fudged somewhere, partly because the Swiss don’t keep any kind of official records. I saw one claim that put the number at roughly double the one cited, so…?
So most countries have 70% less guns, but 100% less shootings.
Math still doesn’t math.
For a non-linear graph of gun deaths x guns, it absolutely does.
Huh, it must have been an outdated info that Switzerland has the most guns per capita. But still, they have large amounts of guns per person nonethless and yet very virtually no mass shooting.
As an aside, the Swiss women’s suffrage is constantly brought up as Switzerland not being democratic and being late in the modern world. I’m not trying to justify it, but that is always misconceived. Every Swiss canton in 90s but one kept rejecting the women’s suffrage in their local referendums, because that canton is overwhelmingly populated by couple of hundreds of old rural people stuck in their ways. It took the Swiss Supreme Court to force that canton to finally allow women to vote. Because of that one canton, everyone outside of Switzerland thought the entire country did not allow women to vote until the 90s, which gave the country a bad historical reputation and myth.
What I said isn’t a myth though. They weren’t allowed to vote until the 70s. All suffrage movements start and end somewhere and there’s ended later than most in Europe. Over 50% of men in Switzerland voted against women voting just ten years prior to them getting it.
Which lends exactly to my point: if we’re to pick something to judge Switzerland by, it’s something like that. Not misinformation about guns per capita.
Like I said, it is just one canton. People make it as though the entirety of Switzerland did not allow women to vote until the 90s when it is just one canton. It is essentially a myth. I’m not defending what happened, I’m saying it is a misconception and a myth at best.
This isn’t a myth and saying “it’s one canton” doesn’t absolve the people who voted overwhelmingly against women being able to vote.
The result is right here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Swiss_referendums#:~:text=The first was held on,approved by 62%25 of voters.
I just can’t figure out for the life of me why you want to defend this or keep calling it a myth.
Oh you’re talking about the 70s. Most people talk about the 90s when that one Swiss canton still did not allow women to vote on federal level, making as though entirety of Switzerland did not allow women to vote until the year 1990.
But sorry to be pedantic (and I am being one because I am a historical nerd and annoyed by perpetuation of historical myths), but it is Liechtenstein which is the last European country not to have allowed women to vote until 1984, not Switzerland.
I didn’t say anything about them being “last”. You make a lot of stuff up for someone who cares about facts.
I misread the previous comments.
In any case, voting rights has nothing to do with gun policies. Switzerland is pretty conservative, but it can’t be denied that their gun policies and culture is sensible. American conservatives, usually the proponents of looser gun regulations, could learn from the Swiss. Give credit to where it is due.
How likely do you believe it is to bring about the constitutional amendment necessary to ban firearms? To gain support of 2/3s the states in addition to a 2/3 majority in Congress?
That aside, you could argue symptoms could be addressed through such extremes if it were possible to do so, but you couldn’t argue such measures address underlying issues - solve problems.
Yeah I’m not arguing for a ban, not even for the reasons of political support; it’s simply unworkable due to the “genie being out the bottle”.
Ah, I see we’re using conservative tactics in making an “other” group demonize and alienate.
In the sense that culture is a complete lack of social safety nets, affordable and accessible healthcare and community support resources, broken ERPO laws, etc., sure.
You could argue rampant media oversensationalism of such violence glorifies it and further incentivizes it to those seeking to commit such a gruesome suicide, but that’s less culture and more partisan wedge-driving and profiteering off ad revenue.
How do you believe we view firearms? I’m interested in hearing how we can do whatever the heck [we] want.
It’s fortunate, then, that the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible.
Is it really political partisan though? America is the only developed country with disproportionately high level of mass shootings compared to others. Not to denigrate developing countries, but this high rate of mass shooting in US is comparable to those in developing nations, because these countries have rampant corruption and lack of enforcement of rule of law. And the level of violence is manifestation of that. The US is developed one and is put to much higher standard as a result.
their country is filled with Swiss people.
we are a mentally ill melting pot of dozens of different cultures (some that praise violence) that barely tolerate each other.
Switzerland has 25% of population composed of immigrants. Canada is just as diverse and wealthy as the US and also possess many guns, but still has little to no mass shootings. I’d say it is more to do with cultural approach to guns by each countries.
Yes, from where?
Swiss 69.2%, German 4.2%, Italian 3.2%, Portuguese 2.5%, French 2.1%, Kosovan 1.1%, Turkish 1%, other 16.7%
The point being?
… and who additionally lack the necessary social safety net and accessible healthcare the Swiss have which coincidentally address many of the common underlying issues.
Aren’t ammo, like, super regulated in Switzerland though ?
No. You can buy it at any gun store quite easily.
This myth comes from the idea that there is ammunition paid for by the gov’t for the weapon that you used in your term of conscription, that you have to use while you’re at the range. If you want to pay for ammunition yourself at a regular gun store, you are more than welcome to do so.
Ammo is regulated. They can only acquire them from regulated spaces like shooting ranges. That’s why the Swiss is one of the top at sports-related shooting.
Switzerland is ethnically homogenous.
Switzerland is ethnically among the most inhomogeneous countries in Europe. The 59.3 % indigenous population is already split among 6 ethnicities – French, Italian, Swiss-German and 3 Romansh. 39.2 % of the population are migrants.
Get your facts straight.
source: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoelkerung/migration-integration/nach-migrationsstatuts.html
Edit: the percentage of first-generation migrants seems to be double that of the US, by the way.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1169711/umfrage/anteil-der-immigranten-in-den-usa/
“migrant” doesn’t automatically make them nonwhite. I classify “French, Italian, Swiss-German and 3 Romansh” as white.
Only anemic, Vitamin D-depleted Swiss are white. Some other sick Swiss are red, gray or yellowish. Healthy Swiss come in all colors from rosé to beige to all shades of brown to black, the same is true for immigrants to Switzerland.
Somehow you lost the term “ethnicity” in your answer and shifted the discussion to skin colour. Assuming this is a reference to the stupid American concept of “race” – please reconnect to reality!
Skin colour and genetic heritage are completely unrelated to ethnicity.
There are Bavarians with a skin type of Fitzgerald VI and Afroamericans with a skin type of Fitzgerald II.
Until the early 20^th century, the American idea of “white” refered to protestant germanic people only – Swiss French, Swiss Italian and Swiss Romansh people might be considered to be “white” by you, but were considered by Angloamericans to be as non-white as Irish or West Africans for the bigger part of Angloamerican history.
We have lots & lots of gun nuts here. I hate them.
Want a hunting rifle? Fine. Just one.
Want a hand gun? Must prove a need and can have one 6 shot revolver.
Weapons fully registered with owner finger printed with renewal every 5 years.
Ammo? 10 rounds for rifle. 12 for revolver. All brass brought in to buy new ammo. Each purchase requires finger print confirmation.
Fuck anyone that doesn’t like it.
Look, gun politics aside, there is a legitimate reason to have more than one hunting rifle.
30-06 is great for hunting deer, but would be an extremely poor choice for hunting squirrels and raccoons, considering that there would be very little edible material left.
Tough shit. Learn to bow hunt.
You realize that’s like trying to tell someone to pick up their newly purchased big ticket item from the store using a bicycle, right?
I get you’re trying to limit the use of guns by limiting the availability of guns and their ammo, but where you drew the line is too extrene/limiting.
At that point you might as well just be honest about it and try to make guns illegal.
Nope. Take it or leave it. I’d even consider allowing multi hunting weapons, eg: shot gun season.
But, only one long gun in the home at a time. The other must be stored at an official gun locker place, eg: police station, gun club, gun sales store, armory… Finger print ID to swap out which long gun you want.
Just repeating myself at this point, but …
And for the record, I am pro gun control, but what you’re advocating is too extreme to be practical and workable.
No. It’s people that tolerate more that are the problem.
Don’t confuse understanding for tolerance.
No.
Yes
I’m astonished that you’re smart enough to remember to breathe, much less able to read and type.
How, exactly, do you think that you get good with a firearm, good enough to be safe, good enough to ethically hunt? Do you have this pants-on-head retarded idea that you can shoot ten shots, total, and suddenly know what you’re doing well enough to not gut-shot a deer? Do you think that 12 shots through a revolver is enough to be competent? Do you understand how ejection systems in rifles work, and that you simply don’t recover all of your brass?
On a short day at the range, I’ll go through about 100 rounds. I’ve been to an IDPA match that had a minimum round count of 120, and a Gun Run match that required a minimum of 50 rifle, and 60 pistol rounds.
Beyond this - what other civil rights are you willing to accept restrictions on based on need? Do you really need to vote? Do you need to have free speech? Would you be okay limiting all of your online comments to just 12, and having to delete all comments before you could post anything new? Perhaps you should have to demonstrate need in order to not have your house searched by the police, or to plead the 5th?
Fuck anyone that wants free speech, voting, religion, or the right to not have their teeth shoved in by cops, amiright?
Get fucked, dumbass.
“I have no response, therefore I’m going to rely on insults.”
I’ve got plenty of response. Your sorry ass doesn’t like it.
Translation: I don’t have a coherent argument that respects law or civil liberties.
Laws need to change. People don’t have liberty for mass weaponry.
“Well regulated” should mean exactly that. Strict limits and very traceable.
You clearly don’t like the idea. So, Fuck off and just give “thoughts & prayers” to the next batch of murdered people.
I’m done with a gun nut supporter.
That is correct; you will not be able to get a tax stamp for an air-to-ground missile, or a laser guided 500# bomb; those are mass weaponry. A rifle or a handgun are not mass weaponry; they aren’t even crew-served weaponry.
“Well-regulated” means TRAINED. That was what it meant when the constitution was written, because the militia–which was all able-bodied men–were expected to muster when called up, and were legally obligated to provide their own arms suitable for military use, and to train on their own. The writers of the constitution explicitly intended for the individual citizens to be armed, and to train. And do you know how you train?
…Beuller?
And you are correct; I do not support any attempts to cut any civil rights, because that’s how the majority gets away with tyranny against the minority. Ask black people, gay people, or women that have been victims of domestic violence just how much the cops have done to protect them.
Ahhh… Racism it is, then.