My compromise for gun control

We can discuss whether or not the ease of access has proved to be more of a hindrance than a help, but as it stands, even if we banned everything tommorow, that doesn't change the fact that there are still more firearms than people and a citizen is bound to come across a firearm some time in his life in the US. If you're bound to come across something potentially dangerous, and there isn't any feasible means of reducing that chance, then the government should provide cheap or free courses to teach you how to respond if and when you come across it.

It doesn't matter what you think, it matters what SCOTUS thinks. Right now SCOTUS thinks the second amendment is an individual protected right and it looks like it's gonna stay that way for a while. As long as it's deemed an individual right, firearms will remain as prevalent, if not more than what it is now.

However public schools offer Driver's Ed to students which is paid for by taxes. Granted, you'll still have to pay for the license but the point is, the government offers free training.

You're forgetting that if you can't drive, you have public transportation. Meaning the government provides a means for you to travel. If we're to transfer your comparison to firearms, the government doesn't ban you from firearm ownership because you can't pay for the courses. In fact, the government would provide means for you to keep and bear arms.

[edited by Balbus to correct coding problem no text was added or remove]

 

Sorry for the bad quoting.

 

Mac

Thing is that Switzerland has mandatory military service, so yes a lot of people get training in the use of firearms, it’s a militia system.

Therefore there are checks for irresponsibility, criminal behaviour and mental fitness, I believe some 20% of people are rejected per year.

It is very likely these same people would also be rejected from gun ownership because the Swiss also has extensive gun control measures (need for licence, register of guns, background check etc) Also automatic weapons are banned.

Under this militia system, many militiamen keep their issued personal weapon at their home - but only for military purposes - which I believe boosts the level of supposed ‘gun ownership’ in the country.

Also a militiaman has to keep themselves trained as part of the contract so often have a gun just for that – so if there was no military service it is likely the rate of gun ownership would fall.

Also the Swiss have a universal healthcare system, a low poverty level, a generous welfare system and a penal system based on rehabilitation (Prison pop Switzerland 81 per 100000 US 655 per population). As I’ve discussed in the past these are all factors.

I’ve also been to the country and meet many Swiss people and they are very civic minded and believe in the benefits of government they also have a very good and effective police force.

So does that make your point?

It seems to me that the Swiss have quite strong gun control measure and that the access to guns it in large part due to military militia system.

So are you suggesting that the US stops having a standing army and adopts the conscription for all adult males?

 

Mac

Well first up as pointed out several times, most gun control advocates are not talking of a complete ban of all firearms

Second what do you mean by we can discuss whether or not the ease of access has proved to be more of a hindrance than a help? In what way has US style ease of access to guns got a benefit?

And sorry your next argument doesn’t seem to make sense, you seem to be saying - nothing should be done to try and reduce the risk of someone getting a gun who is possibly criminal, irresponsible or having mental problems but instead the US should teach those very same people (along with other gun owners) how to shoot better?

Why shouldn’t there be moves to try and reduce the possibility of guns falling into the hands of risky people?

 

Mac

As you indicate the Supreme Court is a political body that often acts for political reasons rather than rational ones.

And as said its ruling (5 to 4 I believe) is disputed and as shown above with the Swiss militia system with a well-regulated militia does not preclude having rather tight gun control regulations.

 

Cars and guns

As I said the example with the regulations around cars was not meant to be a direct comparison it was just an example of how societies can and should deal with certain risks. Cars were not designed as weapons they were created as means of transport but they can be dangerous so we try to mitigate the possibilities of them causing harm.

Firearms were specifically designed to be weapons that injure and kill why wouldn’t a society create regulations to mitigate the possibilities of them causing harm?

I believe that some 85% of Americans drive but only about 30% own a gun. Also for many driving is a necessity (public transport not been that good in many places). It seems to me that guns are not a necessity they are a choice that a majority of Americans reject.

It seems therefore that giving publically funded course for driving is a lot more worthy of funding than teaching those that have basically only made a consumers choice to be able to shot better.

As mentioned public transport it not as well developed in the US and many places in Europe but public transport serves a purpose, it is benefit to the whole community, what public benefit does a privately owned gun give to the community?

For example as pointed out gun ownership doesn’t seem to reduce crime other than to increase the likelihood of gun related injuries and death.

Gun ownership doesn’t seem to have any benefit to the wider population – owning a gun seems mainly to be a personal choice held for personal reasons, with no other benefit to anyone.

 

If you take my guns I will shoot you with my other guns you dun knows about.

 

mac

I corrected it i hope you don't mind

Yours

Balbus

 

Happy jail time for you afterwards then

 

No, but we can take certain aspects of the Switzerland model and adopt it to our own. The draft is widely unpopular and short of a nuclear war and/or invasion on our own soil, it's highly unlikely to ever be reimplemented. However, the fact that Switzerland provides free training and still allows citizens to have most of the weapons available is something to consider. Like maybe we can do something like requiring a license, mental health exam, and extensive background check in order to carry a firearm nationwide as a test law. States will still have their current laws in place for applying for a state CCW. If this system is proved to be successful and not an undue burden to law abiding citizens, we can implement some of the requirements to other aspects.

As a side note, the Switzerland model isn't as black and white as you put it as this video will explain.

 

It's unfathomable that we don't already do this.... Thank you, Mac.

 

I didn't meant to imply anyone on here wants a total ban. I stated that as an extreme case.

The current US style allows those who want to defend themselves to be able to do so without needing to have a lot of money or time.

No, I was pointing out the flaw in comparing driving laws one to one to firearm laws

There should. But we need to do so in a way that doesn't punish law abiding citizens.

 

you know what's interesting?

Once someone has gotten involved with gangs, their need for protection from danger actually probably goes up.

That said, I would argue that those are exactly the type of people that shouldn't have access to the gun cabinet.

 

well there's been another mass shooting..
Damn Americans..
Thai soldier goes on shooting rampage, police say many dead

 

2nd NYPD Officer Shot in Bronx Precinct
This is VIDEO FROM the police pct in the Bronx. Where the same COP Shooter from last night.. Guess he's got some politically rivalry with the police.. haha. bet all the NYC gun laws worked in this case..

 

Only in America

 

Mac

In what way has US style ease of access to guns got a benefit?

But the context was how has ease of access to guns got a benefit to society as a whole?

Yes it makes it easy for those that wish to make a consumerist choice to buy a gun but the majority of people don’t and it does also allow guns to easily fall into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal.

Also ease of access does not to seem to be a good way of tackling crime and the other main reason given that it is protection against tyranny seems dubious at best.

Why do gun owners feel so much more under threat than the majority of Americans?

 

Mac

Why shouldn’t there be moves to try and reduce the possibility of guns falling into the hands of risky people?

How is gun regulation punishing the majority of law abiding citizens, the majority of law abiding citizens have chosen not to own guns why should those that have basically taken a consumerist choice to own a gun not have to follow the regulations associated with that choice that are there to protect general public safety?

 

Gun laws shouldn't punish ANY law abiding citizens, whether they choose to own a gun or not. I'm not saying that every gun law punishes the law abiding, but the ones that do shouldn't be in place.

 

It occurring there doesn't really make it a less typical american phenomenom.