The 2nd Amendment

The Swiss example is interesting, but I don't think it supports your argument very well deviate.

1. A brief look at your first link tells me that the Swiss have compulsory military training for virtually all of the male population.
2. They are a part of the government militia, not private militia, until age 30/34.
3. They have no standing army.
4. This is a government controlled program (big government).
5. All of the sealed, government inspected ammunition issued by the government, had to be returned to the government in 2007. 99% has been returned as of 2011.
6. After the term of service has ended, a license is required to keep a personal weapon.
7. The government sponsors training in firearms.
8. The government subsidizes the sale of ammunition and requires that it be used only at the ranges it is sold at.
9. The Swiss maintain a high standard of conduct,

I presume, even though no weapons were used.
10. No automatic weapons are allowed.
11. To buy a gun a you must have no psychiatric, security, or criminal record. Criminal Records Bureau check required.
12. To buy a weapon from another private individual,

13. Long rifle breech, sport, and muzzle loaders don't need a permit but any sale must be reported.
14. Unlawful possession of guns is punished.
15. Every gun must be registered.
16. Gun carrying permits are only issued to those working in security after passing all above conditions, demonstrating a specific threat, and passing a skill and knowledge test. The permit is only valid for 5 years.
17. Permits only pertain to a specific gun.
18. Public transport of guns is highly regulated.
16. Imitation guns must be registered.

These are all uniform national laws controlled by a national government. Not piecemeal state laws. Sounds like a heap of government regulation to me. Not a bad way of doing it.

 

No, I am not saying that assault weapons automatically equate to mass shootings and high murder rates.
I am pointing out that the example of the video is very simplistic and does not correspond the gun regulation situation that many would like to see in the U.S.

First the title "Why Switzerland has the Lowest Crime Rate in the World" is completely ridiculous. Even if we assume that it does have the lowest crime rate, which I don't know, the video attempts to convey the idea that it is due to the fact that they have a lot of weapons. It may be a contributing factor, but certainly the number of weapons and amount of training does not guarantee a low crime rate. There are many other factors involved. If it was the only factor all we would have to do is supply a gun and training to every household in the U.S. and we would the have the lowest crime rate in the world. Pretty damn simple, why has no one ever thought of that before? Cheap too! Think of the prisons we could eliminate, police officers, swat teams, oh! let's do it!!!

Next using your web site, I pointed out how strict the regulations on guns are in Switzerland as compared to the U.S. It appears that every gun in the country is accounted for. The national government knows where virtually every gun is and who owns them. Extensive background checks, etc. are required.

This is all under the control of a national government, what many U.S. assault weapons proponents would call socialism, big government, whatever. In Switzerland the government appears to have the ability to deny arms to anyone they deem unfit, or remove their guns when found unfit. In the U.S. it is MUCH different.

The man in the video was talking about defending his freedom from the horrors of a Nazi type invasion, he was not talking about using weapons to fight his own government. The purpose of having the military guns in private homes is so that the citizens in the government militia, not private militias, can protect themselves on the way to the military arsenals in preparation for an invasion, not to fight the government when they come to their houses. Weapons to support the government, not fight it.

So anyway, what is this red herring about assault weapons automatically equating to mass shootings and high crime. Who ever said it was automatic, or the only cause?

 

deviate,

First let me say I have nothing against you and I assume you are a fine upstanding person. And I respect your opinions, but I don't have to agree with them, nor you with mine.

But we are having a civil discussion and I will point out areas where I disagree with you.

I don't know about that, but it seems to be an okay country. I am pointing out, as you do as well, that Switzerland is not the United States. The fact is that Switzerland's situation in regards to guns is different than the Untied States. So you can't make a direct correlation between the two countries.

The Swiss model is very different than the current way guns are handled in the U.S. I may support many parts of the Swiss model in the U.S. I could possibly see semi automatic assault type weapons in American government reserve forces homes if they were there under strict registration, regulation, background checks, etc. But that is not what the typical gun lobbies in the U.S. want.

Yes, this is a major problem with our country. My rights trump the rights of everyone else. The Swiss seem to consider the welfare of their entire society over the single individual's rights. No good is to great to deny me my assault gun, in the U.S..

So what? Are you telling me you need assault rifles in case the Canadian or Mexican government invades us? Or is there another country on our borders that I missed? Cuba maybe?

So obviously the ownership of weapons is not the only factor that determines crime rate. The regulation of the weapons, type of weapons, training, social pressures, type of citizens, educational levels, etc. etc. are all factors. So how are the many many weapons we have going to lower our crime rate alone? More weapons does not directly equal lower crime rate.

Some American gun owners will support the government only if it lets them have what they want. If the government were to implement the Swiss model they would deem it to be a Nazi-like regime.

It would be arbitrary if assault type high capacity rapid fire guns were never used in mass shootings. And even if they weren't it would still be prudent to consider some type of control on them. To my knowledge a bazooka has never been used as a mass killing weapon in the U.S., but they are still controlled.

So, interesting discussion. What else ya got?

 

A utopian idealist...I like that.

I was called an idealist by way back in the daze by a college prof during the antiwar days. And that turned out alright, we cut our loses and got out of the Vietnam War.

But I've never been called a utopian before. And then to combine the two!

So deviate, you hold up to us an example of a society that has the lowest crime rate in the world, because, according to your video, it has a large amount of citizen owned assault type weapons.
And we are then to infer that if only our citizens had large amounts of assault weapons our crime rate would also fall to one of the lowest in the world. Sounds like an ideal, utopian society to me.

"We the people" are the government. You don't seem to realize that the government regulates all sorts of things, I have news for you, they do. Are you one of these people who want no regulations at all? Or just don't regulate what I want?