The "rest of the story" no ones reporting.
The "rest of the story" no ones reporting.
what they don't tell is that Switzerland has possibly the craziest and most strict gun laws, despite huge gun ownership. gun ownership is by permit. conceal and carry is done on a specific needs basis (ie, you must pose evidence of a specific threat to justify it.) ammunition must be kept track of and counted by authorities to insure it was not illegally fired. ammunition is extremely hard and expensive to acquire, and as i said, must be kept track of down to the single bullet.
you should read up on it, contrary to the wet dream of the 2nd amendment fundamentalist, Switzerland is a perfect example of good gun control.
Yea, I feel like banging my head against the desk every time I hear the switzerland arguement.
I almost feel as if they ban open carry in every state and just allow concealed cary with a permit we'd be better off. Open carry just seems to cause issues between civillans and cops 90% of the time, if someone walks around with a gun strapped to their back it's only a matter of time before the cops are called. I'm 100% for having guns, I have 6 or 7 myself, just think open carry causes more problems than it fixes......and the "because I can" is getting old.
Also, you can't just look at Switzerland's gun control laws and do a "cut and paste" job and expect it to work for the U.S. Take one look at the difference in location, land mass and total population and you'll realize that there would be no feasible way our government would be able to actually enforce the same kind of gun control laws here. And without total enforcement, it doesn't work.
The Swiss model is what mankind might be able to achieve in limited instances of controlled population, with a greatly reduced poverty rate.
Don't give me an apple and then tell me to peel it with my fingers like an orange.
but that is NOT what the "info" graphic implies. it implies merely that Switzerland has low gun violence because it has high ownership, and that is most definitely not the case.
the truth, as always, is much more subtle and nuanced.
I have an great uncle that is Swiss. Just about every male Swiss citizen does military service, and is required, by law, to keep his weapon at home until a certain age, and has to stay proficient with it and be tested every year. The ammunition is kept in containers with anti tamper lids, so every time they go in for their test and target practice, its checked.
This being said, my uncle did in fact work in an office where a guy went nuts and murdered a dozen people or so, and was in the building at the time. He retired after it, and the perp turned out to be schizophrenic. Again, unchecked mental illness the cause of the massacre, not the existence of firearms.
For some one out side of US I must confess I find your gun laws and the shear obsession with the guns them selves bit bonkers. :)
The Swiss are a bad for most comparisons. They make a practice of doing their own thing, like international hipsters.
Page 32. This is just one instance that I have heard of where the US helped supply weapons to other nations. This was part of civilians who aided England. In all I have heard the number of firearms that CIVILIANS gave and sold came to 120,000.
Then look at all the weapons and other equipment loaned and given by the governemnt:
According to this article we supplied around 30 countries including RUSSIA:
Prior to the Lend-Lease program (and during its early days) there were "gun drives" across the United States held by the NRA and several other organizations where firearms and ammunition could be donated by private citizens to be given to citizens of the UK, where gun ownership was at a low and many "found weapons" such as farm implements like shovels and pitchforks, as well as spears made from umbrellas, broomsticks, kitchen knives, etc were being kept by private citizens for defense. The programs came to be after requests by Winston Churchill himself (he asked for donations in speeches, letters, news publications, etc) and over 50,000 weapons were sent in 1940 alone. Granted the UK could have done a better job of distributing the weapons; often guns were passed out with very little ammunition, or the wrong caliber all together. These weapons were given to people along with the story that they were "donated by cowboys" or "seized by the government from mobsters", and there is documentation to show that this was done both to play on common British stereotypes of the US found in popular culture, as well as to disguise the fact that gun ownership was much more common in the US from embittered citizens who felt unable to protect themselves as a result of government policies on private gun ownership. These were intended just as much for defense purposes as psychological ones; it was believed that people would feel more safe with a firearm in their home. Following the war, most of these weapons were rounded up and destroyed, and very few made it back to the US as promised.
The of course there was the very controversial "Lend-Lease" program itself, which in '41, after months of debate finally resulted in billions of dollars of supplies and equipment being sent to Allied countries in Europe and Asia, much in the form of firearms and ammunition. Russia and the UK armed citizens unable to serve in the military as militias (my god, really?) and volunteer police forces, and the latter even issued weapons to individuals for home defense. Obviously the Lend-Lease program encompassed a lot more than just guns (warplanes and food were the real focus overall) but there can be no question that weapons for non-soldiers or conscripted soldiers were something sorely lacked until donations and later, loans, came in. There are documented instances from early in the war of Russian conscripts fighting with spears and swords as their primary weapons for lack of firearms, and of Polish soldiers firing single rifles in two- and three-man teams to make use of a high ratio of men to weapons. Civilian anti-invasion preparations in the UK which resulted from the program ended up not being needed (beyond their benefits in post-war reconstruction, aid to the wounded, etc) but were of incredible psychological value to a people living in constant (and legitimate) fear.
Lastly there's the famous FP-45 "Liberator", a small stamped metal single-shot pistol designed to be airdropped with a small amount of ammunition over occupied territories for use by guerrillas and resistance fighters. Of the million or so made, only 30,000 or so were ever distributed by the US (mostly over occupied France, Greece and Monaco, where private gun ownership was also very low), but that's quite a large number weapons all things considered. Another half million were lent to the UK to do with as they saw fit. The logic behind these weapons was that they would be a "gun to get a gun", that is to say that it could be used to kill an enemy soldier and take possession of his superior equipment, then given to another fighter to do the same. There was, much like the donation program, a psychological angle as well - it was thought that occupying forces would be frightened by the sheer number of weapons dropped and the prospect that any person might very well be carrying a small, concealable weapon at any time. They were sneered at by US soldiers and US military leaders alike, and as such their effectiveness is often downplayed by US historians, but their are records of heavy and effective use throughout southern Europe.
It should come as no surprise that in Nazi-occupied territories, gun ownership was verboten (pun absolutely intended) and one of the first actions upon seizing a town or city was to use official records (such as firearm registrations and firearm ownership permits) to round up weapons owned by locals. This was done both to disarm potential resistance fighters and to arm conscripted soldiers. I'll leave aside the firearm laws enacted in Germany between 1920 and 1938; both the political right and political left in the US love to bring these up, and neither seems to ever get it right - in truth they have no bearing on what was done in occupied territory during the war. Could higher rates of private gun ownership have destroyed German forces entirely? Probably not. Could they have halted the Nazi advance? Maybe not, but who's to say; it certainly is safe to assume that it would have slowed them down.
As usual, Cockerpunk, you think you know it all, but in this instance (and in most instances in which history is discussed, it seems) you wouldn't know the facts if they bit you on the ass.
I'd ask what history books you're reading, but you tend to make it seem that you haven't any at all.
By the by, private gun ownership DID stop Hitler - he shot himself to death with his own privately owned pistol.
Adimiral Yamamoto himself stated he would not invade the U.S. mainland as there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.
private gun ownership helped kick out the British in The revolutionary war and again in 1812. they were also used by the Rough Riders in the Spanish American war and (God forbid) they will be used again if the politicians every forget the other 14 amendments to the Constitution.
The overall basic point the website is making is factually correct.
Responsibly armed citizens = less crime, less victims of crime.
And as long as law enforcement is aware of the potentially large number of responsibly armed citizens carrying concealed weapons it helps deter them (LEO) from going Nazi too, which I might add is what the second amendment was created for.
Not for hunting but for the people to band together in militias to protect themselves against a potentially totalitarian government like what we are looking at today in this country.
I hope all you bleeding hearts whining about the website dont own any guns so you are good and defenseless.
Good statement Going Home.
Only thing I want to add is how about we enforce laws on the books. And maybe make tougher punishments for some crimes before we worry about adding more laws. How many laws are already broke when a "gun" crime is committed? How many "gun" crimes are committed in areas that are not gun free zones. If a criminal doesn't know who may be packing. He is less likely to cause a major crime.
I recall a recent Media Scandal™ centered around a 2nd Amendment Right advocacy billboard in Colorado featuring a photograph of armed members of the Sioux nation in ceremonial dress, taken at the turn of the 19th century, with a caption that stated "Turn In Your Arms - The Government Will Take Care Of You" - similar to the phrasing of government postings during the Indian Wars. It was criticized by the mainstream media, and writers and reporters rushed out to find members of various nations who would state for the record that they found it offensive, while ignoring those who offered support or were merely unconcerned (except evil Fox news of course, who interviewed a dozen people local members of the Sioux nation who each had different beliefs and opinions).
I have difficulty understanding why the invoking of the Wounded Knee Massacre (or even just the push for Native American Disarmament) by certain groups is termed "offensive" or "exploitative" when it is a very pointed and poignant example of forced disarmament and the ensuing slaughter of unarmed civilians at the hands of a government sanctioned military group gone wild, yet members of other groups can bring up the Holocaust, Vietnam, genocide in Darfur, Armenia, the Balkans, or or even THE SAME DAMN EVENT in reference to a presidential candidate, a hiring policy at a company, an entirely dissimilar war, or something equally unrelated, and get away with it almost completely unscathed.
At that war, statistically, each Finnish soldier was equal to about 10 Russian soldiers.
Btw. As in Switzerland we also have mandatory arms service for every male.
Laku, my Finnish family still has rifles used during the Winter War, they're on the wall at our cottage way up north. Its where they hid all the women and children evacuated from the cities being bombed by the Russians. They are pieces of history, and a reminder of the sacrifices it took for freedom.
My great grandfather, and one of his nephew died on the rooftops of Helsinki manning anti aircraft guns. With your (our?) Independence day only a couple weeks ago, I'd say its a good time to reflect on what guns are, or could be: an equalizer.
Not sure what all of my Uncles did during their service. One of my mom's brothers was an officer, perhaps in the infantry. The other I'm not sure about. My aunt's husband worked with aircraft maintenance and developed gun camera footage. My grandfather's Officer's Cross is one of my most prized family heirlooms.
I have a question.
of all the violent crimes in the USA that are commited with a firearm, how many are properly registered?