Fewer grammers. More spelling.
In recent history? Libya. Syria.
Not completely, but push hard enough and at least part of the military will change sides. Push too hard and enough will change sides to make a difference.
Sorry, I wasn't really focused on your reply, it was just the hook because I see this comparison often. I believe we see pretty eye to eye as to how this all plays out. The military in Switzerland is the way you get the weapon, thus the checks, mental and physical and the training. As long as you can guarantee a proper subset of that in a civilian setting, I don't see much of a problem. But you pretty much pointed that out in your reply, too.
My meaning was more in the vein: Don't bring Switzerland up as to why the status quo in the US is fine. It is applicable when the pure number of weapons is concerned.
What I was also trying to say is that in the mean time probably a majority of Swiss isn't happy with the status quo here and would like to reduce the number of accessible weapons, because most find the cost too high.
No where, in any European nation, is there an official criteria that does not allow you to get a secondary education based on your parents income.
Also, your first sentence is exactly what they were talking about. In 3rd world countries the poorer children get no education, thus anything being better than nothing, thus the system in the US is better than those countries, but the results are worse than countries that do better at having less poor people to begin with.
So you're saying they were using some kind of directional antenna that's only focus point was the person they transmitted the signal to? Or they oversaw the reaaaally long wire he trailed to the toilets. Otherwise, still a broadcast, even if only one person is actively listening for the signal.
That sounds HARD! Let's stick with what we know, please.
Stupid rationalization of inaction is stupid rationalization of inaction.
Fighting off a knife wielder with a broom is feasible, fighting off a gun wielder, not so much. Less deaths are less deaths. Your reasoning is: Because some, albeit less, people could die, it is ok to do nothing and allow more people to die?
Of course reducing violence to an utopian level is the goal, but not possible. Regulating things that make it easy to kill people and have few other, practical, uses seems like a sane alternative to shrugging and letting it happen again.
Please name these countries. And don't use Switzerland, it doesn't count.
But I'm just a crazy Swiss writing from a place where gun control seems to work pretty well and we're not all overrun by gun wielding criminals that we can't fend off.
Ok, everyone always brings up Switzerland when the US gun violence debate is on. This is not a valid comparison on so many levels.
First off, I'm Swiss, did my military training, lived with a fully automatic "assault rifle" at home for about 15 years, was in a juniors rifle association. I like to shoot a gun for sport, the bang is also fun.
"hundreds of thousands of genuine fully automatic assault rifles in private homes"
Yes this is true and there is a strong push being made to stop this practice and leave the rifles in the arsenals. The reason for having the rifles at home was always "if Switzerland is attacked, you as a militia man can fight your way to your assembly point with your 20 shots of general issue ammunition", which is stupid. The only things these guns are used for at home are killing yourself and/or your family and every few years some unbalanced nut playing "sniper" at the local bus stop. (Not saying this would not happen otherwise, but read on.) Also, everyone with a rifle has gone through military selection (which can and does not accept you if you are too eager to learn how to shoot people with a gun), military training and there are strict laws in place about when and how you are allowed to take your ammunition out of it's sealed box. You can buy the ammunition, but that takes extra effort, you don't have it lying around. However, most people in the militia don't really want to own that gun or have it at home. You take it home because it is your duty, store it dismantled and take it out once for your (usually) yearly refresher course and once for your yearly shooting practice.
"Plus they also have hundreds of thousands of so called "assault weapons", semi-auto and capable of accepting military high capacity magazines, in private homes as well"
There is a strong tradition of having rifles for sport shooting in rifle clubs (Actually called Vereine, a bit more close knit than a club, but the word translates very badly). There is a very rigid tradition of how and when you load and fire your guns, juniors are taught gun handling and gun ethics in these groups.
There are very few small arms in Switzerland, it is not necessarily much more difficult to own a pistol, but very few people tend to have them.
You need a license with a background check to buy any kind of gun. If you want to carry a gun you must take a test and have a believable need to carry one to protect yourself or someone else, to be renewed every 5 years.
What I find to be the most important distinction is, that in Swiss society carrying guns around except in very specific, almost ritualistic, circumstances is generally frowned upon. Also, and this is my personal theory, the Swiss have not been in a war in so long, that they have forgotten that guns are any kind of solution to anything or should somehow make you safer. The right or rifle associations might disagree with me, but I find they talk the talk, but don't really act as if they believe it themselves.
In summary, in Switzerland the owners of all "assault" rifles are all background checked in the vast majority military trained. Small arms ownership is frowned upon by society, as is taking your gun anywhere you go (which is also illegal). Switzerland is a very safe country with a low violent crime rate, I genuinely don't know how we do it, but it's a fact and it's self perpetuating. I believe the low amount of guns being carried around contributes to the overall feeling of security.
In my mind the important thing in this debate is making sure that only responsible, well trained individuals own guns. The only way I see that this can happen, is if there is strict control at point of sales. However, in think as important would be education and an attempt to change the social perception of what a gun is for, away from "something to protect myself with" to "a recreational tool that I use as such with possible security applications that probably don't apply to me". That is a long haul goal, I believe that starting with the stricter control would gradually lead to the perception change.
But stop pointing to Switzerland of an example of why things should stay exactly the way they are in the states, if anything the lesson should be that several things need to change, if you want to follow the Swiss model.
Or in Communist Poland...
However, I won't open the can of worms that might be discussing sticking anything into Poles...
Perhaps: In Communist Poland Poles stick votes into you??
bagged myself a bonafide movie-star.