Swiss voters on Sunday approved a measure to tighten the Alpine nation's gun laws, bringing the country in line with many of its European partners despite the objections of local gun owners, Swiss media reported, citing official results.
Switzerland's public broadcaster said more than 63% of voters nationwide agreed to align with European Union firearms rules adopted two years ago after deadly attacks in France, Belgium, Germany and Britain.
The vote Sunday was part of Switzerland's regular referendums that give citizens a direct say in policymaking. It had stoked passions in a country with long, proud traditions of gun ownership and sport and target shooting. Switzerland, unlike many other European nations, allows veterans of its obligatory military service for men to take home their service weapons after tours of duty.
The Swiss proposal, among other things, requires regular training on the use of firearms, special waivers to own some semi-automatic weapons and serial number tracking system for key parts of some guns. Gun owners would have to register any weapons not already registered within three years, and keep a registry of their gun collections.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:07PM (40 children)
The measure was approved by a wide margin. Very unexpected.
There were two aspects to the vote. One is gun control. The other is more general: adopting EU law, because otherwise they get mad at us.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Chocolate on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:25PM (29 children)
Are guns so much of a problem there?
Bit-choco-coin anyone?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:32PM (6 children)
They aren't much of a problem at all. But the EU Parliament doesn't respect Switzerland as an independent country, they're just a little scrap of land that thinks they're independent. Just more overbearing, arrogant creation of problems out of nothing, which is the only thing the EU Parliament ever does.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:45PM (1 child)
Next up to harmonize with the EU: Switzerland to open the gates to immigration!
Ha, never happen... or will it? ...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 23 2019, @09:43PM
The Swiss will do whatever the Swiss want to do, just like they always have. Well, since 1805 anyway.
Despite what the various A/C's post here, the EU don't want to force the Swiss to do anything particularly.
If you filter everything through the American foreign policy view where you do what we want or we'll invade, then you wind up assuming the whole world interacts like that.
The reality is, the EU, the various European countries, and Switzerland have a friendly relationship. They listen to each other, and are quite capable of compromising if they need to.
Threats of violence are not the only way of achieving a result.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NewNic on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:12PM
Switzerland has a choice: EU-style gun laws or leave the Schengen area.
Follow the rules or erect barriers.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:49PM (1 child)
What part of "Swiss voters" did you fail to grasp?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @07:39PM
I'm gonna go with the "grasping" part which is intimately attached to the "critical thinking" parts.
I think the AC hokey-pokeyd one too many times.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 24 2019, @08:48AM
What a stupid statement. There is no pressure whatsoever on the part of the EU towards Switzerland.
What has happened is that there has been a debate in Switzerland regarding the accessibility of weapons by criminals. There have been several thefts of weapons from homes in the recent past. The Swiss have decided - without any influence from the EU - that there additional measures that can be taken that do not deprive those who have a justifiable need to keep weapons from doing so. Those who keep their weapons after military service are not usually permitted to keep ammunition for their weapons at home.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:44PM (13 children)
Well, yes and no. They don't have america's mass shootings. They do have exceedingly high suicide rates, the second highest in the world, which a lot of pretty solid research connects to firearms per capita(of which they're also second highest in the world).
Obviously the research is epidemological, but the nature of the observed connection where regionally more guns reliably correlates with more gun suicide with a large effect size, and gun suicide correlates with higher overall suicide rate, though the mediating variables for that are more numerous. With an attached underlying theory based on findings that guns in the home correlate with suicide in home.
And while epidemiology isn't controlled experiment, a coherent model with consistent data for multiple layers of analysis is about the best you get from public health in general.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:50PM (7 children)
Astronomy has no controlled experiments but doesn't have the same issues. I'd say its more that people studying public health "don't like math", so they are incapable of making any sort of quantitative predictions to test their theories.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:58PM (6 children)
When you typed this up, did you ever ask yourself "Am I making a meaningful point?"
Of course people studying public health like math. That's what public health is: applying rigorous mathematical analysis to health trends. And most of these papers fit a fairly clear hypothesis, observation, conclusion paradigm.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:05PM (5 children)
Plugging stuff into SPSS/SAS isn't rigorous mathematical analysis. I mean real math where you start with assumptions and then derive a quantitative model that you believe may be more or less true (there will of course always be "perturbations").
Something like 99% of that field is just misinterpreting the coefficients of arbitrary linear models. Change the model, change the coefficients. If you include interactions you can even get stuff like a positive "effect" of guns when male/female is coded as 1/0, but negative "effect" when you use 0/1.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:21PM (3 children)
Yeah, I can totally see wanting a non-linear model on this dataset [aphapublications.org]
Stop shitting out ad-hoc justifications for why the evidence and analysis is wrong, and if you're not completely and utterly full of shit posit a counter hypothesis and model that better explains the data. Or fuck off. One of those two. Not this lazy pseudointellectual shit.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:11PM
Sorry but you are not following at all.
1) The y-axis says "adjusted" suicide rate. These adjustments are probably including other variables in a linear model.
2) There could be some third variable that correlates with both suicide rate and gun ownership, if you further adjust for that this plot would look totally different. The variables included in such models are inevitably a matter of convenience, which is why these coefficients and plots don't mean anything. It all depends on what you include in the model.
3) I would definitely use a non-linear model for the purposes of prediction on such data. There is still quite a bit of scatter there, and you can probably do better than the linear model (but sometimes it isnt worth the effort).
As I said, 99% of public health research amounts to making this exact same error of interpreting coefficients of arbitrary statistical models meant only to be used to predict some outcome. And the issue is hardly limited to public health research. Scary to say, but random anon person on the internet knows better than all these PhDs, it is true.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:20PM
Also, "linear" does not mean fitting a line. That may be another place you are confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_combination [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_regression [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @07:24PM
This guy has a really good analysis on all these graphs:
http://freakoutery.com/2018/07/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide/ [freakoutery.com]
and especially the tricks related to getting a line through the origin as in your pic:
http://freakoutery.com/2018/12/lying-with-gun-data-again/ [freakoutery.com]
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:21PM
Same AC. Try this:
"Treatment effect" is 1.17 vs -0.38. That is just a particularly egregious example though. In general unless you believe your model is "true" the coefficients have no meaning. You can still use an arbitrary model to make predictions, but usually you would just use gradient boosting or neural networks for that these days.
Now think about all the damage these people have probably done to society from drawing conclusions about pretty much random numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:02PM (4 children)
"presence of guns correlates with gun suicide"
presence of rope correlates with rope suicide.
presence of drugs correlates with overdose suicide.
presence of knives correlates with knife suicide.
presence of bridges correlates with bridge suicide.
etc. etc.
You aren't talking epidemiology -- your talking tautology. Many of the countries with the highest suicide rates have low or no gun ownership. Countries with similar suicide rates have different levels of gun ownership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by ikanreed on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:06PM
Man, that sure is a purposeful and willful disregard of the second half of the analyses you've got there.
You're one of those people who blockquote single sentences from posts to refute them aren't you?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @06:58PM (2 children)
Effectiveness of suicide intent by guns is much higher than any of these other categories.
Lot of people miss or chicken out, when it's not as easy as pulling a trigger.
I'm all for letting people off themselves, if they want to and don't hurt anyone else in the process. That doesn't prevent me from acknowledging that guns are excessively good at turning a bad day into an irreversible mistake.
ANYWAY, reading the list in TFS, this has nothing to do with suicide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @01:35AM (1 child)
It could be that the level of one's intent to commit suicide is at play. A serious person will choose an effective means while a person seeking attention or whatever, will not. How many people just looking for attention choose guns? And will banning guns have any effect on those who are serious and capable of choosing other just as effective means?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday May 24 2019, @04:36PM
As my last sentence alluded to, the list of restrictions in TFS is not a "ban".
It's also not a "reduce suicides" list. It's a "responsible ownership and traceability" list, driven by the open borders with the EU next door.
IF you're gonna have a lot of firearms in your society, that is a fairly reasonable list. The Swiss are typically not dreaming of armed uprisings against their violent dictator.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:47PM
For Switzerland, no. The country has lost much prestige since the 80s, but it is still a government of and for the people.
For the EU, yes. The union is run by unelected second-rate and retired politicians from the national governments, the Western members being under intense working by international capital and media elites. The people haven't got much chance there to influence their government at the ballot box, and their rights get eroded every day. Look at France: Would the government want a possibility of yellow vests arming themselves?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:31PM (3 children)
Violence was very common before people got guns. Guns are the great equalizer.
We quickly forget why modern life is relatively peaceful, then we blame the guns for the rare remaining violence. Britain is now facing an uptick in violence, having decided that there is no right to defend yourself with a gun.
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:13PM (2 children)
Violence is correlated with political oppression and general economical unrest. It has nothing to do with criminals being scared of return fire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:46PM
Political oppression and unrest have nothing to do with people attacking the criminals who are responsible and fester under such circumstances? I can't believe this was said non-AC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:02AM
Not quite so over the span of history. Britain experienced a steep drop in violent crime with the introduction of the wheel-lock and an even greater drop with the introduction of the cheap flintlock (*). Since ending the English right to bear arms in the early 1900s, murder has crept up and assaults have exploded -- as in 200x or more.
Let me find the citation:
Carlisle Moody: overview: https://billlawrenceonline.com/carlisle-moody-handguns-stop-murders/ [billlawrenceonline.com]
Actual study: http://economics.wm.edu/wp/cwm_wp158.pdf [wm.edu]
It makes sense when you think about it. Before firearms, the average 40 or 50 year old stood no chance against a hulked up 19 year old with nothing but fists, a stick or a knife. After the gun, the playing field was leveled and even if the ruffian also carried a gun, it was still a mere even fight. Take away the guns, and the thugs get free pickings -- just look at Britain and the change in assault rates: 2.39/100k in 1920, to 419.29/100k in 1999.
(*) From the study itself:
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @12:58AM (2 children)
It's not about violence, crime or terrorism, it's about disarming the citizens for when EUSSR sends in a policing action to enforce one of their decrees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @08:50AM (1 child)
FTFY
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:48PM
the united arab emirates? what
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:31PM
With the surrender of Switzerland to the IRS, the country isn't providing much competitive value anymore. They need the EU as a place they can send their surplus population to for work.
(Score: 3, Funny) by deimtee on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:04PM (3 children)
We're all tired of hearing about Brexit. How about Swexit for a change.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:48PM
Switzerland isn't a member of the EU.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:54PM (1 child)
I am sorry but if you are going to make a name for this it clearly needs to be Sexit.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @07:00PM
Can't.
My wife already trademarked it.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ilPapa on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:03PM (4 children)
I thought Switzerland wasn't part of the EU. Also, do the Swiss really seem like people who care whether someone gets mad at them?
Is it possible that people are starting to get fed up with all the guns?
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Thursday May 23 2019, @09:57PM
It is not part of they EU, but it is surrounded by the EU. It has adopted most of the EU regulations in order to trade more easily.. In general it could be considered mostly part of the EU.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:11PM
It is very possible leftists are getting "fed up with all the guns" because that is a core part of their beliefs which happens to exactly coincide with destroying your country over a few generations. Disempower your citizenry? Let unassimilating immigrants flow in unchecked? Paint power groups that oppose it as national boogeyman and censor their complaints as Hate Speech? Check, checkedy check!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @01:30AM (1 child)
When has that every stopped EUSSR from meddling? From Ukraine to China to US elections, they got a fucking opinion on everything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:43AM
FTFY
E.g. Ukraine is one Russia's reaction to its exclusion from NATO and the expansion of NATO closer to Russia space [time.com] - guess who meddled to get this outcome?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @03:45PM
It is like western civilization had one too many vaccines or something and forgot how to walk.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:08PM (3 children)
Imagine, the mass shooting in France wouldn't have happened if only law abiding people would have been prevented from owning fully automatic machine guns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @09:03AM (2 children)
What mass shooting in France?
Is it the blacks who took over the airport?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:39PM (1 child)
Seriously? You know the theater that got shot up by people using machine guns and explosives -- guns even Switzerland didn't let their residents own (let alone explosives), but in France where gun control is extremely draconian. All that gun control does is ensure that the only people who have guns are those with the most violent intent and that everyone else can do nothing but cower.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @08:48PM
exactly. they want to bring in terrorists, call you a racist and watch you let your kids get raped or "married" while all you can do is whine to your criminal government and denounce the "racists and gun nuts" who would like you to be able to protect yourself. too bad you're a bunch of brainwashed, neutered cowards.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 23 2019, @04:55PM (19 children)
They say, 63% ("almost two thirds") of people agree more gun control is needed. You could also say that 37% ("almost 4 out of 10") of people think the existing gun control is already good enough. An issue being 60-40 doesn't say to you that people are very divided on this? Well, I guess it's at least better than here in the U.S. where we like to ram things through Congress 51-49 and tell the other party to go fuck themselves.
Just going to point out that even though Switzerland
Switzerland is not a member of the European Union.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NewNic on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:10PM (18 children)
The issue is the Schengen area. Switzerland wants to remain part of it, and the the EU wants Schengen countries to adopt EU-style gun regulations.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @05:41PM (14 children)
There's a demographic problem with schengen, much like those living in cities telling those living in rural areas they can't own firearms. Good luck to the EU enforcing gun control in Eastern Europe.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @07:10PM (13 children)
You might want to look at the high ownership of hunting rifles in the EU. It seems that it would surprise you. I think it's about 20% firearm ownership, with the overwhelming being hunting rifles (the real kind, not the AR-15 kind).
A far cry from the US's 120% firearm ownership (not sure what the handgun to rifle ratio is), but not exactly what most Americans picture.
Rural EU people do have their guns. Like their non-SUV cars, they don't carry around twice as much gun as they really need.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 23 2019, @09:58PM (7 children)
Just like where I live. No-one argues that farmers should give up their shotguns or .22 because they're a tool for vermin control, or hunting, which is often the same thing.
We have decided however that no-one really needs an AR-15, because why?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:09PM (4 children)
Flip the question : considering the proven risks of having such weapons indiscriminately disseminated, who actually needs one ?
(Setting aside the sanity of the tiny minority who truly believes they will imminently take arms against the Evil People in D.C., rather then ask the Military to defend the constitution, as we all know and respect them to do)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:10PM (2 children)
You're quite right of course, no-one actually needs a firearm, vermin control can be done just as easily with traps and poison, but if people want to go duck shooting (very popular in my country) then I have no problem with it, and neither do most people.
The average duck hunter is more likely to hurt themselves in a road accident than a hunting one.
Also ducks are pests and the numbers need to be controlled. See also: Deer, pigs.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:58PM (1 child)
You specifically asked about the AR-15. That's the one I'm returning the question about the "need" for.
Duck hunters don't use 5.56 rounds, usually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @12:53AM
If you are using an assault rifle for duck hunting then you are doing it wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:51PM
The military is under control of Trump, they will be the ones rounding you up and torturing you until you give names for more people to torture. Look at Pinochet for an exemplary scenario. And don't forget to look at who was supporting that guy either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @07:26PM
Because why doesn't one need an AR-15? Because they possess the ready capacity to fire 20-30 shots without reloading which gives an attacker an advantage, where the typical shotgun or .22 does not.
Because why does one need an AR-15? Aside from target shooting (AR's are very fun target rifles and actually work well at varmint hunting with the right loads), presumably because the only final check against having a standing army which can be used against a populace is to take up arms against it. U.S.S.R. Occupied Afghanistan pretty well showed the need to have advanced weaponry to stand up to a nation-state aggressor (witness the supply of the Mujahadeen by the U.S.) U.S Occupied Afghanistan likewise showed how much an armed populace can screw with an established authority. Wikipedia, for example, says about 20% of Afghanistan is still under Taliban control. I don't like that, but it does give an indication of what is possible when one has good equipment.
That's entirely aside from their value in home defense, generally considered a go-to choice for rifle home defense in the U.S.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @08:51PM
in the US a free person has the right to defend oneself from the tyrannical government. "of current police and military use"! you're so brainwashed you think the government is working in your interest like a god or a parent. they are your master and you are a fucking groveling victim.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:27PM (4 children)
It is light, which matters if you have to carry it into the woods. It has little kick. It is easy to get spare parts and accessories for. It is cheap.
The only failing is that some places consider it too weak for legal hunting. The deer might not die quickly. If that applies, you need the larger AR-10, which looks nearly the same. (the magazine is fatter) There is also a conversion kit for an AR-15 that upgrades to larger ammo, which oddly fits in the standard magazine.
Those old wooden stock rifles are like manual typewriters. Reminder for the Americans: your first amendment rights do not limit you to manual typewriters.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @01:13AM (3 children)
I am unaware of any jurisdiction where a 5.56x45 is considered insufficient for deer.
For elk, maybe.
"Those old wooden stock rifles are like manual typewriters."
Yes indeed. Uncomfortably heavy, but satisfyingly positive in application.
A very apt comparison.
"Reminder for the Americans: your first amendment rights do not limit you to manual typewriters."
And yet another.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:12AM (2 children)
See page 91, Modern Firearm Regulations. .24 (6mm) minimum caliber, centerfire only. For muzzleloaders, the minimum is .40 cal. See page 7 for the definition of big game (spoiler: includes deer).
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/02063/2019-2020%20Big%20Game%20Hunting%20Pamphlet.pdf [wa.gov]
Now you are aware of at least one where the .223 or 5.56 cartridge used in the AR15 is considered too wimpy for deer.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @02:33AM (1 child)
Indeed I am. Thank you, anonymous sir or madam, for a truly informative post.
That said, I must point out that this is not a very sensible regulation, as it defines whether or not a weapon is adequate simply by the calibre. Not only is the 5.56 prohibited for deer hunting, so is the 22-250! The 6mm Remington is legal, but the 5.56 is not? Depending on the load there's a hair of difference between the two. And that old .30 carbine that's nowhere near as capable as the 5.56, yeah, that's legal too.
I'm not trying to narc on the .30 carbine btw. It's fine. But so's the 5.56.
What doesn't work is someone that thinks that a big powerful cartridge will compensate for lack of accuracy. That is all.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:03AM
Well, this is from WA state where even a Marlin Model 60 is now defined as a "semi-automatic assault weapon". Keep expectations low out here on the Pacific coast.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:42PM (2 children)
How is this a troll? It was the whole reason for the referendum in the first place?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/05/17/gun-control-vote-switzerland-may-19-could-take-away-swiss-weapons/1186889001/ [usatoday.com]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NewNic on Friday May 24 2019, @05:07PM (1 child)
Because the self-worth of some posters here depends on the EU being shown to be an authoritarian failure? Or perhaps they adhere to the magical thinking that is called libertarianism?
Seriously, the Troll mod says more about the moderator than about the post.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @06:45PM
Shockingly, says the guy whose signature on every post is basically flamebait
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by tizan on Thursday May 23 2019, @08:35PM (29 children)
In the US we have decided that the 2nd amendment (right to possess of a gun by a mental patient) primes over the declaration of independence (right to life and happiness of bystanders ...is a truth that is self evident and all).
I wonder when the judeo christians will decide that it is in the 10 commandments priming before "thou shall not kill"
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday May 23 2019, @09:08PM (4 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill [wikipedia.org]
If the commandment was literally don't kill anyone for any reason, the bible would be a whole pile of useless drivel. Due to the fact that God himself commanded his people to kill other people.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:10PM
That's already the case, so what is your actual point?
rts008
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @01:10AM (2 children)
"Due to the fact that God himself commanded his people to kill other people."
If you believe that, you didn't read the book closely enough.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:50AM (1 child)
By which you mean, god himself didn't command anything because god doesn't exist, and the bible is a collection of nonsensical, contradictory fairy tales written by ancient barbarians?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @11:12AM
Nonsensical? You need to look deeper, there is sense, it's just not the sense you may be expecting.
Contradictory? Surface contradictions are there to remind you to look deeper.
As an example, I'll repeat the quote I was replying to;
"God himself commanded his people to kill other people."
There are several passages that seem to say this, yes. But there's also abundant evidence this is simply not true, not least being the later passages where the same people that were supposedly slaughtered to the last man in a previous chapter turn up again, alive and doing just fine many years later.
You can look at this and just decide it's nonsense, as you have, and that's your right, but it's certainly not the only way to understand it.
If you read carefully, it goes from being full of contradictions to being full of confessions.
Those contradictory passages are evidence of a person or persons conventionally referred to as 'the deuteronomist' who claimed to be 'reforming,' restoring what G_d had originally commanded, when in fact he was doing the opposite - writing his own rules, then using G_d like a ventriloquists dummy to promote them.
This is clear on a close reading, 2 Kings 23 among other passages cannot be read any other way. G_d didn't order genocide, genocidal men put their evil fantasies in G_ds mouth, and this was followed by death, destruction, and captivity.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday May 23 2019, @10:06PM (21 children)
What we've prioritized is the right to protect oneself. Versus the preference of violent predators for having their prey disarmed and helpless.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @12:46AM (17 children)
Protect yourself, yes, fine. But do you actually need an assault rifle with an extended magazine to protect yourself?!? Just what kind of trouble are you expecting, Son? Seriously, if you actually need an assault rifle to protect yourself then you have either pissed off some pretty dangerous dudes or you need to go to the shooting range and practice your marksmanship. And if you have pissed off an international drug cartel, for example, then one person with an assault rifle isn't going to do much to deter them. Firing off 30+ rounds to protect yourself from a home invader needlessly puts everyone, including you and your family, at risk. Just sayin'.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @01:07AM (14 children)
If you mean me personally, no, don't own one. Never have.
But that's entirely beside the point. Which is that you're arguing from emotion not knowledge. The way you phrase that question makes it clear you don't understand what you are asking. I don't say that to be mean, but if you don't understand that you don't understand then it will be very difficult to get you to understand.
You realize, hopefully, that assault rifles are extremely regulated in the USA already? Since before they were even invented, actually, as the NFA goes back to 1934 and the first assault rifle only entered service in 1943. Yes, you can own one, if you have a squeaky clean record and maintain it, but the paperwork and extra taxes involved are prohibitive to regular people.
What I assume you're referring to are not assault rifles. They're just autoloading rifles, the same kind we've been hunting with for well over a century - but with cosmetic features derived from assault rifles. The most common is what's referred to as the "AR 15 Platform" and "Platform" in this case has a meaning very much like a compatibility standard in computing. So if you buy an AR 15 style carbine and then you buy some extra stuff, some mods, you can THEN go back later and buy a BETTER base, and transfer your mods.
You're working yourself up over a nothingness - a demon conjured by some propagandist, out of your own ignorance.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 24 2019, @01:26AM (5 children)
Whataboutism and quibbling to bury the point at its finest.
You know damn well what GP AC, in his/her ignorance, was talking about. I grew up around guns. I've shot a lot of them myself. My dad was a proud member of the NRA for several decades before it was taken over by loonies, and he taught me from when I was a young child.
Stop pretending to reply and actually address a post for once. Stop arguing by sidestepping the real issues. You know damn well that so many weapons easily purchased in the U.S. are not necessary for everyday self-defense.
Be honest about the motivations behind the gun lobby -- they like big guns and they like to shoot them. For many gun owners, it's just that. They love the feel of going to a shooting range and rapid-firing a bunch of rounds into a target.
On the other hand, many of them suffer from delusional paranoia about the government. (Note that there are very good reasons to be paranoid about the government -- I'm talking about people who think they need an arsenal of guns because the feds are going to break down their door... which they might now, because they're mentally ill enough to suffer delusions and stockpile giant amounts of weapons... thus becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.) Many of them suffer from delusional paranoia about race wars, immigrants, etc. They "work [themselves] up over a nothingness - a demon conjured by some propagandist, out of [their] own ignorance."
What you say is beside the point. Be honest about the reasons behind U.S. gun policy. It's not about personal protection alone. It's about other stuff, too, which is why U.S. gun policy is so extreme compared to other places.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @01:52AM (3 children)
Nope. Quite the opposite, from where I sit.
"You know damn well what GP AC, in his/her ignorance, was talking about."
Well, I think I do at least, I obviously think I understood it well enough to correct it.
I believe he was worried because he thought all these AR-15 tacticool modular builds are actual assault rifles.
In that case he should rest easy, they simply aren't.
It's absolute foolishness to get worked up because you think someone's rifle just *looks* too evil. And that's what this boils down to, but it's whipped up by a dishonest media among a largely ignorant populace.
What next, will you come for my guitar, because it too *looks really evil?*
"I grew up around guns. I've shot a lot of them myself. My dad was a proud member of the NRA for several decades before it was taken over by loonies, and he taught me from when I was a young child."
I'm going to take that profession with a dose of salt for now, I have seen little if anything to make it seem credible.
"Stop pretending to reply and actually address a post for once."
And just what would I have to do in order for you to admit that I've addressed the post?
"You know damn well that so many weapons easily purchased in the U.S. are not necessary for everyday self-defense."
I should certainly hope not!
And nowhere did I say or imply that. What on earth are you on about?
Boy that would really be a sad commentary, if most purchases were because someone expected to have to defend themselves!
No, I'm sure most purchases are for plinking, or varmint culling, or hunting, or something like that. As it should be.
But the reason that we *as a people* chose to enshrine this as one of our very highest values, chose to encourage universal or near-universal ownership of weapons, THAT has a lot to do with self defense. Even more to do with militia, of course.
I think it's appropriate when we exercise our liberty in regards to plinking or hunting or what have you, that we recall that the REASON we have such unparalleled freedom to arm as we like is because we live in a free country, one which does not depend on a standing army of slaves or mercenaries for its ultimate security, but on the people as a whole.
"Be honest about the motivations behind the gun lobby -- they like big guns and they like to shoot them. For many gun owners, it's just that. They love the feel of going to a shooting range and rapid-firing a bunch of rounds into a target."
Hmmm. Not sure about your first sentence, more dishonest framing I think. But the rest of it? Even if so, so what? Nothing wrong with that. FFS, you sound really repressed, like you need a therapist, or a prostitute. Or maybe a couple hours at the range with a .50 BMG would set you straight?
There's nothing at all wrong with liking to shoot, or to drive fast cars, or fly planes. It's a natural human desire. Of course there's a need for care, be safe, but you seem to be implying it's some sort of moral failing.
It's ok to be human.
Your penultimate paragraph is really only objectionable in context, so I won't address it specifically.
"What you say is beside the point. Be honest about the reasons behind U.S. gun policy. It's not about personal protection alone. It's about other stuff, too, which is why U.S. gun policy is so extreme compared to other places."
Oh yeah, see my prior reply.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:44AM (2 children)
So, this is mostly about having a fun hobby? Then why in the very next sentence do you say:
So, which is it? Is this about having a fun hobby? Or is it about protection? And exactly what armed militia do you think would be appropriate for Adam Lanza, Stephen Paddock, Devin Patrick Kelley, or Nikolas Cruz? Remember, if you are aiming for "near-universal ownership of weapons", then those guys are inevitably going to be armed too.
Your notions of protecting the homeland with a citizen militia are arguably a bit dated. And, if security of the home front is your true objective then you can always serve in the military. You know? That armed group which is populated by the citizens of these United States of America? That military? Why can't you protect and serve in the military?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @03:14AM (1 child)
"So, which is it?"
I thought I had made it rather clear, but I shall endeavor to make it crystal.
It's both, of course. You're talking about two different things.
The reason that we hold this as cultural and legal value? Or the reason we buy a weapon?
Two very different things. We hold it as a collective value based on the history already mentioned, and we tend to buy them as individuals for the other reasons, also already mentioned.
"And, if security of the home front is your true objective then you can always serve in the military."
Now there's a sentence the founders would have certainly found offensive.
How many levels of nonsense are there?
The assumption that a standing military is a better foundation for national security than an armed citizenry is diametrically opposed to the values of liberal democracy on which this country was founded. And it makes absolutely no sense.
Plus, you're assuming that I'm of age to for that employment, and not currently employed there, why?
Why do you keep trying to make everything into a personal jab of some kind? Why can't you just discuss the ideas without all this rhetoric?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @04:16AM
The founders are no longer with us to offer their opinion on that.
We are no longer in the 18th century, dude! The plain fact is that we now have a standing military made up (mostly) of US citizens. Do you not trust your fellow citizens in protection of he homeland? Why is that?
Look, when you put your ideas out there on full display don't be too surprised if the rest of us do a complete vivsection on them. Or should we just accept your pearls of wisdom without cross examination?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:22AM
Ever single thing you must do to shoot accurately especially at distance, is exactly like meditation. Control your breathing, your heartrate (seriously, the pulse of blood from a heartbeat will affect your aim), and focus your mind down to a singlular focus free from the clutter of random thoughts. Precision target shooting is one of the most calming activities one can do. Bubba don't know it, but he's a Buddha on the range.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:17AM (7 children)
Oh, yes, please do explain what it is I am really asking. No, really. Please proceed.
Mean? Perhaps not. Patronizing? Yes, definitely. I think I understand well enough, thank you very much.
Extremely regulated? The National Shooting Sports Foundation has estimated that approximately 5 million to 10 million AR-15 style rifles exist in the U.S. within the broader total of the 300 million firearms owned by Americans. [wikipedia.org] It doesn't look to me like the taxes or the paperwork are all that prohibitive to the average American if there are 5 to 10 million in circulation. And, considering that these weapons end up in the hands of deranged nut cases with alarming regularity, it doesn't look like you need all that much of a clean record to get access to one.
A nothing? A demon conjured by some propagandist? Sandy Hook, [wikipedia.org] San Bernardino, [wikipedia.org] Las Vegas 2017, [wikipedia.org] Sutherland Springs, [wikipedia.org] and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School [wikipedia.org] don't look to me to be mere "propaganda". Unfortunately, these "conjured demons" look to me to be all too objectively real.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @02:38AM (5 children)
Ah, here we go.
This is how they've been frightening you. Torturing you, one might say, with these phantasms.
Again, "AR-15 Style Rifles" != Assault Rifles
They simply aren't! It's nonsense.
They're regular autoloaders in a standard form modeled on the military rifle (so they look mean! and so they can interchange mods, much of the time at least.) Exactly as I explained to you, even if you found it patronizing it's the truth. Those are no more assault rifles than my model airplane is a real warbird. You've literally been wound up to a point of existential panic, by these news organizations, over something that isn't even true.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:59AM (4 children)
Frankly, "AR-15 Style Rifles" versus "Assault Rifles" seems to me to be a distinction with very little difference. According to this wiki page, [wikipedia.org] the primary distinction between civilian semi-automatic rifles and military assault rifles is select fire. [wikipedia.org] But if you feel the need to "educate" me further, go right ahead; seeing the emptiness of your argument would be amusing if it were not so sad.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @03:20AM (3 children)
Yes, the difference is selective fire. The difference is an automatic weapon versus an autoloading weapon. This is a huge difference, an order of magnitude difference, and it's not coincidentally exactly the line between weapons designed for 'sporting' uses and for military ones.
So you don't think that's an important difference, even though that difference is *literally the definition* of the difference.
But you do think that it's horribly important that AR 15 style rifles look scary, right?
Even though they work almost exactly like an antique hunting rifle, aside from the bling, that's far more important than the actual definition of the words you've chosen to make your argument with.
Such a logical argument.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:56AM (2 children)
The difference is that with an "AR-15 Style Rifle" for civilian use you are restricted to semi-automatic fire whereas with an "Assault Rifle" you have the option of burst mode or full automatic. While that is certainly good fodder for politicians to split hairs over it makes little difference when you find yourself on the business end of one of these weapons. You are making this out to be a much bigger deal than it is. You can drink the NRA's kool-aid if you want, but I'm not. And since you brought up the military, commanding officers really hate it when those under their command switch to full auto or burst mode; they (usually) consider it a waste of good ammunition.
I don't give a damn about how scary they look; that's a phantom inhabiting your own imagination. What I care about is what the rifles, whether they be <sarcasm>"AR 15 style rifles" or "assault rifles",</sarcasm> can actually do. And whether you have to pull the trigger once for each bullet or you can set to burst mode or full auto makes very little distinction in that calculation.
Misdirection is not going to help you any. Your "antique" bolt action hunting rifle is not a semi-automatic weapon. For someone who is trying to "educate" me, you aren't doing a very good job of it.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @10:46AM (1 child)
"Your "antique" bolt action hunting rifle is not a semi-automatic weapon."
I didn't say anything about bolt action and you know it.
The Remington Model 8 (on the market since 1905) is an antique, a hunting rifle no one confuses with an 'assault rifle' (because it doesn't look evil, having a wood stock instead of carbon fiber, which makes it a bit heavier to lug around) and it works just the same way.
"For someone who is trying to "educate" me, you aren't doing a very good job of it."
Casting pearls before swine, no doubt.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @06:51PM
Exactly. Take that same rifle, put on an adjustable polymer stock so the 6'2" guy and he 5'4" wife can both shoot it comfortably, a muzzle brake to help with recoil, and an extended mag so you can put more holes in the paper without reloading, and it's suddenly an illegal "assault weapon" (code for "scary looking gun").
And don't you dare put on a suppressor so you can use lighter hearing protection. What are you, a terrorist?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @02:53AM
The taxes are for assault rifles. That means select fire OK? Full auto. Machine gun. While it has been illegal to make new assault rifles for the civilian market since 1986, it is still perfectly legal to own one that entered the market before that law went into effect (you'll probably need at minimum $10,000 and usually a lot more) providing you have the appropriate tax stamp which includes an intrusive background check and registration of the firearm in your name with the ATF. There are actually several types of devices regulated in that manner: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/which-firearms-are-regulated-under-nfa [atf.gov]
An AR15 that you can go buy at a Cabellas is NOT an assault rifle because you cannot select "full auto" or "semi auto" with a switch mounted on the receiver. The one you by at Cabellas is semi auto only -- like a common double action revolver, it will fire once each time you pull the trigger but will not fire fully automatically.
This is one of the most informative movies on how firearms work that exists. It starts at zero -- just a pipe, a cartridge, a nail and a ball peen hammer and by the end, you will be familiar with the most common types of modern operation (well, bolt action and self-loading, and of self-loading, blowback, gas, and recoil operation, as well as SA trigger group, full auto trigger group, and select fire trigger group). If you want to see how semi automatic fire works, skip to 31:35, full auto: skip to 36:25, select fire at 38:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJzXG7MYX1c [youtube.com] (bonus, at 1:30 is an example of a "clip")
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:44PM
Constitutional right v. need
Bogus.
Do you need a computer/typewrite/ball point pen to exercise the 1A?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @08:59PM
"But do you actually need an assault rifle with an extended magazine to protect yourself?!? Just what kind of trouble are you expecting, Son?"
have you not seen the news or are you just another state socialist liar? have you seen the video where the vagas/utah? cops gun the crying/begging kid down in the hall of the hotel? how about the homeless people cops kill all the time. waco, where they were proud of killing everyone? ruby ridge where fed pigs were sneaking around in the woods on private property, killed the family dog, then sprayed the 10 yr old boy in the back with a mp5?
this is the point of the 2a and all you mouthpieces for the murderous authoritarians should know that already.
(Score: 2, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 24 2019, @01:13AM (2 children)
Pot, meet kettle.
Nah. I mean, I actually agree with that justification, if it were actually what U.S. gun policy was created around, I'd probably be okay with that. I mean, I think it's a flawed premise -- I think most stats on defensive uses of guns are misinterpreted or outright distorted. But if someone legitimately wants to own a guy for that reason, I can understand the argument and wouldn't necessarily stand in the way.
However, that's not what's driving gun policy in the U.S.:
--If it were, the NRA wouldn't spend so much time protecting the rights to own massive guns with massive magazines. Who are these people you're talking about trying to "protect oneself" against? Al Capone's goons storming a house with machine guns? And why the need for giant arsenals of such weapons owned by individuals?
--If it were, why doesn't the NRA and other pro-gun groups advocate for mandatory training and licensing in order to own and operate such weapons? It makes no one safer for an idiot with no training to be armed with a loaded gun. It's very likely such an idiot could end up shooting himself and/or an innocent bystander in a tense situation.
--If it were, why the strong opposition to gun registration, background checks, etc.? Again, it makes no one safer if law enforcement can't trace the source of a weapon used in a crime. It makes no one safer to put guns in the hands of mentally unstable people or previous violent criminals.
Let's be clear that the NRA -- which used to be a rational organization promoting gun competitions, training, and responsible gun use -- was taken over in the 1970s by a combination of anti-government loonies and racist loonies worried about armed Black Panthers. That's historical fact. And that politicized lunacy has been lobbying and driving American gun policy ever since.
Note that I'm not actually advocating for all the restrictions above necessarily. I'm not against gun ownership. But "dishonest framing"?? You've proven to be the master....
(Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @01:34AM
If you want to talk about what gun policy has been created around historically, well you're talking about taking a tour of the proverbial sausage factory.
I'm not going to even attempt anything like a comprehensive treatment in this reply, but I'll boil it down to the three largest factors, while not admitting but warning that there are lots of others if you want to do a thorough treatment.
1. The militia concept. Many of the founders were firmly opposed to having a standing army of any size or shape whatsoever. Even those that were in favor of one envisioned it as a professional core which would 'stiffen' the militia in time of trouble. The militia is every able bodied free man in the jurisdiction, and they're all expected to report carrying their own weapon and ammunition in case of emergency.
And before you poo-poo that as an outmoded concept, consider that as recently as WWII a large and very professional army, the Dai-Nippon Teikoku Rikugun or Imperial Japanese Army, did a thorough study and concluded that invading the US mainland was suicidal specifically because of the armed citizenry which they believed would render occupation absurdly expensive and ultimate unsustainable. Even an invasion which was initially successful and managed to destroy the organized army and air force would ultimately have ended in the destruction of the Empire, in their professional estimation.
And since then, how many times have we seen lightly armed guerillas do just that, hmm?
2. Self defense. It's a fundamental notion of any liberal society that everyone deserves to be defended, and in extremis everyone deserves to be allowed to prepare for that. And don't tell me to carry pepper spray when the gangs have AK-47s.
This is second to the militia, but it goes way back.
So there's two, but I promised three, remember?
Those two work in favor of human rights. The third works against it.
3. Racism. Specifically, the worry that the lesser folk are arming themselves. This is the origin of virtually every piece of gun control legislation in US history, going all the way back to the laws prohibiting FMOCs (POCs in todays politically correct language) from owning weapons at all, to later laws outlawing first the least expensive weapons (so-called "Saturday Night Special" laws which prohibited inexpensive weapons favored by minorities.)
Go on man, think for yourself for a moment and quit being a tool.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:00AM
A: debateable.
B: not even close -- it was the racists who promoted gun control to prevent the Back Panthers from exercising their rights under the constitution as well as their right to self-defense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23 2019, @11:24PM (1 child)
Absolutely everything in the constitution and its amendments (the supreme law of the land), down to your local parking ordinance has priority over the declaration of independence (a nice summary of ideas, but not law).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @09:03PM
and the stupid bastard is lying anyways. the framers made it clear that known *insane* people(Oppositional defiance disorder was a qualification, not an ailment in their day) and career criminals (possessing a plant was not a crime in their day, mind you) were not covered.