Switzerland has the lowest violent crime and gun related crime in the entire world, they have been number 1 for decades. Yet the twist is in Switzerland citizens are required to own a gun. All citizens are given a gun, ammunition and have annual training.
Just FYI Switzerland has strict controls on guns and ammunition, the ammunition comes in cans and is accounted for regularly if the can is opened that's a fine there, any bullets missing must be accounted for. If there's a shooting and your ammunition is missing (they search everyone in the vicinity after a shooting) then you're automatically a suspect. The NRA does not endorse Switzerland style gun controls. But you're right with the last bit, the reason Switzerland has low violent crime has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with how they take care of their people. Fortunately if you look at the world violent crime rates they're dropping everywhere (well everywhere except Australia) so maybe some day we'll all be as low as Switzerland is now and we can all strive to attain Switzerland's new ultra low violent crime rate consisting of drive by resurrections!
currently in my State, registration and background checks for Rifles don't exist, they do for Hand Guns.
You must not live in the US then, dealers must perform a background check on all cartridge weapons, only black powder guns and airguns are exempt from that requirement.
I can go down town to a Pawn shop, walk in and walk out with a crippled AK47, come home and order some parts...and have a fully automatic weapon to mow down some folks I'm pissed at.
Well that and don't forget your visit to the machine shop, also don't be surprised when the atf shows up at the same time as your parts. They tend to keep a close watch on parts that can be used to make an automatic weapon. Have them shipped to a name and address not on the list of registered machine guns and they take an interest in it.
I am under firm belief the second amendment pertains to Law enforcement and Military usage.
The second amendment applies to the people and the militia, look it up it uses both of those terms, it doesn't say military or law enforcement in it. Further the guys who came up with the second amendment... said things like
"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." - James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public servants." - George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe
"... the British Parliament was advised, by an artful man to disarm the people that was the best and most effective way to enslave the people - but they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." - George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1778.
If you look at it they intended for the second amendment to apply to everyone EXCEPT for law enforcement and the military. Law Enforcement officers and military members are not allowed to bear whatever arms they please and are required to bear arms in accordance with the respective policies governing use of arms. The United States Supreme Court even went so far as to disconnect the militia requirement (and if you read the history of the second amendment this makes sense that clause was originally there to protect people who had religious reasons for refusing to bear arms and ended up neutered to prevent abuses of that clause by the government to disarm its people) the Supreme court had this to say in Heller V. DC
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
and on the militia clause
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms
Here in Aussie we have much stricter gun laws and guess what by proportion we have less crimes committed with guns. It's a no brainier.
Those who live in glass houses ought not throw stones. While the rest of the world has a reducing violent crime rate Australia's actually going up and has always been around 2x the rate of the us and is quickly approaching 3x the rate of the us.
Some (Sad) Real World Statistics:
- An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present (Wiebe, Douglas J. PhD. “Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated With Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study,” Annals of Emergency Medicine 41 (2003): 771-82.)
I thought we were going for real world statistics not made up numbers? estimate is another word for made up.
- A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, Arthur L. et al., “Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home,” Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection, and Critical Care, 45(2) (1998): 263-267)
That study was intentionally biased (even the author admits it) and excludes instances where criminals were not killed or injurred, ie if the criminal ran away after seeing the gun it's not counted in the study, thus skewing the numbers in favor of the point he wanted to make http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2001/22-times-less-safebranti-gun-lobby's-f.aspx
I'd finish out the rest of your list but I'm alas out of time. But the core point is guns just don't kill as many people are you'd like to claim and banning them won't do any better, the violent crime rate in the uk where guns are banned is 4x that of the us, worse yet gun crime has doubled since they banned guns.
"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." -- Mark Twain