3 ms·

> If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best. You're not from country living. That statem

> If you're not willing to go all the way restricted, as in most EU countries, I think the Swiss model is the best. You're not from country living. That statement you made up top seems like virtue signaling to make your seem friendly to everyone. > Certainly I think it's much more important to manage the access to ammunition. After all, a gun is only actually dangerous when it's loaded. Sure, a gun that isn't loaded can still be used to threaten people (because even then it demands attention and the utmost respect) or even pistol-whip them. But it is very unlikely to be used to kill anyone or anything. Gun control has historically not stopped violent crime. I'll give it to you, it restricts ACCIDENTAL shootings committed by guns. But the other side of that story is that criminals still have guns, and will still kill you with them. Baby, meet bathwater. > Personally, I think guns belong on shooting ranges, and nowhere else, unless used for a practical purpose, such as hunting. Again you're not a country kid. I'm from the west and my CCW is one of my most important possessions and a statement that I can and will defend the lives of my family and myself. > I live in Denmark. Firearm ownership is very restricted, you have to have a very good justification to own anything that isn't a hunting rifle How do you defend yourself during a robbery? Home invasion? These things aren't uniquely American. Wackos are everywhere. > Another example could be Switzerland. You can own guns and buy ammo, but there are much tighter background checks in place compared to the US. Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens. Criminals don't need background checks - why do I? > they have a much more developed culture for gun safety and respect for firearms, so their rates of gun violence are extremely low. They have a culture around mandatory service in the armed forces. Their people are conditioned to see guns and aren't afraid of them - similar to pre-1970 America. It used to be that "only bad guys hid their guns" and now I have to own a CCW to defend myself because snowflakes might get offended. > as in most EU countries Yeah and things seem to be going SO WELL over there, right?

iamatworknow 9y ago
>Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens. I live in New York state. I'm an honest citizen, and I've never been in any more trouble than a broken tail light. It took 11 months for my pistol permit to be approved, and yet there was no "strain". It was literally something I applied for and forgot about until the sheriff called to do my in-home interview, which is also required here to get your permit. Somehow it wasn't the end of the world, because I, like most people, don't actually have a "need" for guns. The only thing that bothered me about the wait is that it doesn't apply to every state. And no, home defense isn't a need; it's an excuse. Guns are fun. Dangerous, but fun, and that's why people get them in 2017. Any other reason you or others give is a rationalization based on anecdotes of home invasions that will probably never occur in your lifetime.
- 15155 9y ago
  > It took 11 months Maybe it should take 11 months to register to vote? > I, like most people, don't actually have a "need" for guns That's awesome for you, truly! The government is notoriously bad at making subjective decisions for the population at large, however, which is why staunch regulation is met with such resistance. > home defense isn't a need; it's an excuse I need to defend my home: I am not physically capable, nor should I be required to take the risk of engaging a violent, felonious aggressor or his posse with my bare hands. I can't afford to live in a great area, so burglaries are quite common. Do I have less of a right to defend myself because I am poor? -- Simply put: the Second Amendment grants me the right to keep and bear a firearm, as affirmed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I don't need any excuse or rationalization: jurists much smarter than I have done that for society at large.
ramy_d 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... Stats show that despite having the most amount of guns, the US does not have the most amount of homicides (by firearm) per capita. Most EU (and Canada!) are doing quite well by comparison against the US.
sobani 9y ago
> > as in most EU countries > Yeah and things seem to be going SO WELL over there, right? Actually, they are. According to Wikipedia[0] the US has over 10.54 gun related deaths/100K while the UK has 0.23. That's a 45x difference. Of course I picked the UK, because it's the second best European country (the best is Romania). My own, the Netherlands is doing much worse at 0.58 deaths/100K. But even the worst western Europe country, Finland, is doing 3 times better than the US at 3.25 deaths/100K. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

iamatworknow 9y ago

>Background checks put unnecessary strain on honest citizens. I live in New York state. I'm an honest citizen, and I've never been in any more trouble than a broken tail light. It took 11 months for my pistol permit to be approved, and yet there was no "strain". It was literally something I applied for and forgot about until the sheriff called to do my in-home interview, which is also required here to get your permit. Somehow it wasn't the end of the world, because I, like most people, don't actually have a "need" for guns. The only thing that bothered me about the wait is that it doesn't apply to every state. And no, home defense isn't a need; it's an excuse. Guns are fun. Dangerous, but fun, and that's why people get them in 2017. Any other reason you or others give is a rationalization based on anecdotes of home invasions that will probably never occur in your lifetime.

15155 9y ago
> It took 11 months Maybe it should take 11 months to register to vote? > I, like most people, don't actually have a "need" for guns That's awesome for you, truly! The government is notoriously bad at making subjective decisions for the population at large, however, which is why staunch regulation is met with such resistance. > home defense isn't a need; it's an excuse I need to defend my home: I am not physically capable, nor should I be required to take the risk of engaging a violent, felonious aggressor or his posse with my bare hands. I can't afford to live in a great area, so burglaries are quite common. Do I have less of a right to defend myself because I am poor? -- Simply put: the Second Amendment grants me the right to keep and bear a firearm, as affirmed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I don't need any excuse or rationalization: jurists much smarter than I have done that for society at large.

ramy_d 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r... Stats show that despite having the most amount of guns, the US does not have the most amount of homicides (by firearm) per capita. Most EU (and Canada!) are doing quite well by comparison against the US.

sobani 9y ago

> > as in most EU countries > Yeah and things seem to be going SO WELL over there, right? Actually, they are. According to Wikipedia[0] the US has over 10.54 gun related deaths/100K while the UK has 0.23. That's a 45x difference. Of course I picked the UK, because it's the second best European country (the best is Romania). My own, the Netherlands is doing much worse at 0.58 deaths/100K. But even the worst western Europe country, Finland, is doing 3 times better than the US at 3.25 deaths/100K. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...