Gun Laws Vs. Homicides By State

[+DieChecker]

I'm going on about the subject of this thread. The reason I brought up Switzerland before you replied was to compare gun crime which is what we're discussing here. "Being more like Switzerland", yet not having any impact on gun crimes, is irrelevant to the purpose of this discussion. So you think that having millions of full-auto assault rifles in the US is a good idea provided that they're forced to do so by government provided they're also trained by the government. That's fine but I hardly see why that makes a difference in what the F-bomb we're talking about here.

So do you think that the military training that the Swiss get has Nothing to do with the crime rate? Does knowledge that lots of people with weapons, who are trained, not lead to the deduction that crimes against homeowners is more dangerous? In that I would agree. However, that people in Switzerland have assault rifles is publically known, so criminals know that those guns are there. Whereas in the US, the criminals have to guess who has guns and who does not. Even if everyone had a gun, the criminals could easily guess who would still be untrained or more of a victim. If 75% of the population is untrained, then they are basically still victims, unless they know how to use/load/clear/safe/aim/fire their weapon.

The thing about the government prescribing training is that if the government Gives You an assault rifle to hold and use in their behalf. Then they should have the right to tell you the limitations on how you can use it. If you don't want the government rifle, then you don't require the training.

Edited January 2, 2013 by DieChecker

[Yamato]

So do you think that the military training that the Swiss get has Nothing to do with the crime rate? Does knowledge that lots of people with weapons, who are trained, not lead to the deduction that crimes against homeowners is more dangerous? In that I would agree. However, that people in Switzerland have assault rifles is publically known, so criminals know that those guns are there. Whereas in the US, the criminals have to guess who has guns and who does not. Even if everyone had a gun, the criminals could easily guess who would still be untrained or more of a victim. If 75% of the population is untrained, then they are basically still victims, unless they know how to use/load/clear/safe/aim/fire their weapon.

The thing about the government prescribing training is that if the government Gives You an assault rifle to hold and use in their behalf. Then they should have the right to tell you the limitations on how you can use it. If you don't want the government rifle, then you don't require the training.

I think your idea is thoughtful and decent, mostly towards the prevention of gun accidents and that could save lives, but I won't support federal designs on your idea. If certain communities, counties, cities, or states want to add such a regulation to handgun ownership you won't hear any protests from me about it.

To decrease homicides and violent gun crime? No I don't see any correlation. Did the Fort Hood shooter save lives because he knew how to shoot before he started blasting people? Are our soldiers and veterans somehow inoculated from the kinds of mental illness relevant to the Sandy Hook tragedy? I think that there are some very bad people out there who also know how to shoot.

Extra training on usage would be an effective solution if the problem was accidents....errant bullets hitting people because the gun owners didn't know how to shoot straight. Or going off in their holster because they didn't know how to safely handle their firearm, and etc.

A little bit of training on gun safety and gun responsibilities and expectations would be a good idea as it might lower the number of gun deaths, but that is shaky ground asking for govt to put even controls on our gun ownership rights. This issue is obviously political dynamite in light of the 2nd Amendment, and probably a good roll in the hay for message board rabble rousers.

Small, local government that's closer to the people and thus more liable to the people is what I believe we should lean towards on every issue. It's insane to me how people run to Washington DC first for seemingly every problem they have.

[ninjadude]

Who keeps the list? Who enforces the list? You can't have your idea without government treatment. What you're suggesting is that government get involved in our health care records and our doctors....there are privacy laws in this country did you even know that?

Not as much as you might think. Plus they are the shizzle to get enforced. And there are already similar laws on the books. Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse. One so suspected has pretty much lost any privacy to the government.

[+DieChecker]

I know that when I was in the Army that there were some (Not many really, but some) soldiers who had to requalify with their M16 over and over again, because they could not hit the 50 meter target consistantly. What helped them was repeated training. I believe that training would be the difference between a homeowner being able to defend himself and.... shooting himself trying to get the gun off Safe.

[Yamato]

Not as much as you might think. Plus they are the shizzle to get enforced. And there are already similar laws on the books. Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse. One so suspected has pretty much lost any privacy to the government.

Once you open the next can of privacy destruction you'll never be able to close it again. And that's some of the reason why expecting government to solve all our problems is so hazardous. Government doesn't know how to stop handling something once it starts. And here you are nonchalantly informing me that privacy doesn't exist. So carefree, so blind in trust.

I know that when I was in the Army that there were some (Not many really, but some) soldiers who had to requalify with their M16 over and over again, because they could not hit the 50 meter target consistantly. What helped them was repeated training. I believe that training would be the difference between a homeowner being able to defend himself and.... shooting himself trying to get the gun off Safe.

And when shooting ourselves trying to get our guns off safe becomes the problem, that idea would solve it.

[MstrMsn]

There are other factors as well. I believe Vermont is a open carry state. How much of that contributed to thier low crime rate?

Vermont is a right to own state. You need to prove residency, have a valid ID (I believe it must be a driver's license) and pass a federal background check. After that, you pay for the firearm, ammo and whatever else you're getting and leave.

Now, the thing about these background checks that most people have a misconception of - they only take minutes to do, not days (unless there are many checks being done, in which case they will have you come back either later in the day, or the next day). These checks can be done over the phone, or online with NICS.

Edited January 3, 2013 by MstrMsn

[MstrMsn]

Twist a lot?

But I am not surprised.

And here you have the data on background checks performed by state, as I said Alaska has less handguns:

In fact, in California ten times as many handguns were purchased than in Alaska.

You can really tell how many handguns one state bought over another from this? You do know that NICS is for ALL firearms, and not just handguns, right?