8 shot, 3 dead at ABB power shooting

[gorfle]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/07/factory.shootings/index.html

Reports are that the shooter is among the dead. I heard on the radio that he committed suicide.

Once again, the usual course of actions is for the armed perpetrator to shoot as many people he feels he has wronged him as he can until resistance shows up, and then he kills himself.

It's too bad everyone inside had to wait for people with guns to show up to help them. This is why I advocate concealed carry just about anywhere, including in your workplace.

Rules or laws against bringing firearms to work will do nothing to stop people like Timothy Hendron from bringing a gun to work and killing people. But they do stop anyone from being able to resist people like him.

[shawcomm]

1. Damn.

I agree, we should be allowed to carry at work. No amount of laws will prevent someone intent on crime from getting a firearm. That's the problem with criminals, they don't give a fuck about the law. :eyes:

[T Wolf]

2. If he shot his fellow victims of the corporate theft, that is misplaced and fucked. OTOH, if he

went into the exec suite and targeted the ones who raped their pension plan, there is justification - or at least, explanation.

As things get worse and worse, more people are going to be going after the real criminals in this society - the cretins and parasites in the board rooms. Maybe they will start to listen when more of them wind up dead on the marble floors of their inner sanctums.

[proteus_lives]

3. Important point.

"Rules or laws against bringing firearms to work will do nothing to stop people like Timothy Hendron from bringing a gun to work and killing people. But they do stop anyone from being able to resist people like him."

That's the truth. :thumbsup:

[TPaine7]

4. Even after the police get there, you're on your own.

The shooting occurred just before 6:30 a.m. Arriving officers were told that a man had entered the building with a rifle and a handgun, and that several people had been shot, police said.

"Police made a perimeter around the business and located those victims who needed medical attention," the statement said.

"But, but... the police will protect you."

For those of us who don't believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy, reality is a little different. You can usually count on them trying to figure out who killed, raped, murdered, tortured...., etc., you, or in this case, they may try to figure out why. That's about as much as you're kinda, sorta guaranteed.

[K8-EEE]

5. I'm not on the "we all need to carry weapons at all times" thing

That's just fucked up. Other countries don't have that problem. If I really felt like I had to have a gun just to go to work I'd move to Canada!

[eqfan592]

6. Because Canada NEVER has crime, right?

That's like saying promoting the wearing of seat belts at all times is really "fucked up."

[Katya Mullethov]

9. It certainly rings hollow

When the same safety mongers wont even suggest you consider a properly fitting helmet to go with your seat belt .

[K8-EEE]

12. It has less, right?

[K8-EEE]

13. The freepers even said those ladies who got shot up doing aerobics

Should have had their guns on them and were like"of course he shot up a gun free zone!" How the fuck do you do an aerobics class with a gun! I mean that is just crazy.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Keep mine in my gym bag.

Just sayin'.

[paulsby]

7. that's not the point

the point isn't "we need to carry weapons at all times". the issue is " we should be ALLOWED to make the CHOICE to carry"

choice. it's what's for dinner

[K8-EEE]

10. How about the CHOICE to have common sense gun control like

civilized countries where they don't have nearly as many shootings as gun-crazy USA

[X_Digger]

14. Yah, we need the choice to not have choice!

Did you actually read what you typed before hitting 'post message'?

[K8-EEE]

15. I don't think people have the "choice" to have nuclear weapons do you?

So why do we need military assault weapons on our streets? Just to make paranoid people feel "safe?"

[benEzra]

16. Possession of a "military assault weapon" outside of police/military is a 10-year Federal felony.

The only ones that can be possessed legally outside those parameters are a few rare and hyper-expensive pre-1986 collectibles, and you have to obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) to own one. They're more tightly controlled than howitzers and bombs. The relevant law is the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by the Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986.

If you're talking about NON-automatic CIVILIAN rifles that "look modern", like AR-15's, civilian AK derivatives, Kel-Tecs, and whatnot, those aren't military weapons; they're the most popular civilian rifles in the United States. And they're not "on the street"; they're almost exclusively in the closets and gun safes of the law-abiding.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

Check out the "Rifle" column in that chart, and compare it to total murders. Rifles, with or without handgrips that stick out, aren't a significant crime problem in this country and never have been.

[K8-EEE]

18. Then let the gun lovers have rifles at least I can see (and avoid) them

Concealed weapons in public places LIKE BARS does NOT make me feel safe -- it's nutty.

[X_Digger]

20. So it's about how you 'feel', not whether or not you actually are safe?

We've had an increase of guns and a decrease in crime since the peak in the early 90's.

While I would never say that more guns = less crime, it's easy enough to show that more guns = more crime is demonstrably false.

Starting with Florida in '87, a modern flood of states have passed 'shall issue' concealed carry laws- 40 states now have it. And crime has continued to go down (maybe because of, maybe in spite of, more likely independently of).

Other than how you 'feel', have any indication that concealed carry actually makes you less safe?

[K8-EEE]

23. Links?

Yeah Florida now there's a safe place!! Not!

So let's see, the countries where people carry more guns would be the safest then?: NOT!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

[X_Digger]

25. Check the FBI's UCR & DOJ's BJS

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm





Those goal posts must be getting heavy- you've moved them around more than once.

[benEzra]

26. No, that would be places like Vermont and New Hampshire,

where it is easier to carry a gun legally than it is in Florida. Florida's carry laws are mid-pack; FL is one of the minority of states where unlicensed open carry (other than on your own property) is a crime, for example.

In Vermont, you don't even need a carry license to carry a concealed firearm, as long as you are carrying for lawful purposes.

[SteveM]

35. Concealed-carry of guns is an individual choice, not related to social policy...

Perhaps in the future someone will come up with a model to measure the effects on violent crime (if any) of carrying concealed. That is not the point. Carrying concealed is a choice made by individuals when those individuals deem it necessary for their own protection. Some folks think this will reduce crime, but most here believe the jury is still out on what social effects will come from the practice of concealed carry. Concealed carry is eminently a self-defense measure.

Most places in Florida (and other states) are quite safe. Violent crime is most often localized in inner-city neighborhoods. You can walk down most streets in Austin, Texas and not worry about crime. But just off I-35 in the north of town, you could very well be a target of drug-addicts, small-time kidnappers looking for ransom, armed robbers, rapists and general thug-a-rama.

Same for Miami. Same for Tampa.

[benEzra]

22. I'm OK with restricting carry in bars, suitably defined.

However, "guns in bars" is most often scare-speak for "licensed carry in restaurants with wine lists", which is where the real issue usually lies.

Concealed weapons can be a problem, but it depends on who is carrying them. If it's the felon in the next booth who has three aggravated assault convictions and is barred for life from so much as touching a gun, but is carrying one anyway, that's a problem. If he/she is a LEO or a CHL holder, then you're in less danger from them, statistically speaking, than from the other patrons.

My wife and I have both qualified for carry licenses in multiple states. To obtain one here, we have to pass multiple background checks, have our prints run by the FBI, pass a mental health records check, take a class on self-defense law, and demonstrate proficiency on a range, live fire. I seriously doubt we fit the MSM stereotype.

[K8-EEE]

46. "Guns in bars" is "scare speak" because it's a stupid and scary situation

but gun cultists have this conviction that guns have to be allowed EVERYWHERE or they aren't "free" or "safe"

[benEzra]

74. Pretending the issue is primarily about "guns in bars" is the scare part.

Most states allow licensed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, although the carrier is generally not allowed to drink. My own state outlaws carry if the restaurant has a wine list. Whenever a proposal comes up to change that, the scaremongers always start up about "guns in bars".

I think Florida's rule is a fair compromise; carry is allowed in restaurants that serve alcohol, but is prohibited at establishments that derive 51% or more of their income from alcohol sales, and in a restaurant with a bar, you can't sit at the bar if you're carrying.

[SteveM]

32. So, you want to ban SOMETHING...

First, it's "military assault weapons," now it's concealed weapons (handguns?).

This is why 2A advocates place little faith in "common sense" or "reasonable" gun control: under those cryptic expressions is a desire to ban whatever can be banned. And once you ban one type, there will be another, and another...

Sorta like peanuts.

[PavePusher]

34. I don't C.C, I normaly always Open Carry my handgun.

Does that make you "feel" any safer?

[K8-EEE]

49. Paranoia runs deep

Into your life it will seep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line the man come
and take you away.

[paulsby]

65. the "fear canard"

the idea that carrying a gun (openly or concealed) is evidence of fear or paranoia.

i carry fire insurance. i even did on my old house that was fully paid off. iow, i was not legally obligated to.

why?

because i wanted to be protected against an EXTREMELY unlikely, but devastating event.

a house fire.

that is the same reason i choose to carry (at times).

i am not in fear of house fires or criminals.

i am prepared.

[K8-EEE]

67. You have ann obvious fear of

the shift key! CAPITAL offense, ha....

[paulsby]

39. ah, the "gun lover" canard

i am pro-choice. thus, am i an "abortion lover"?

by k8-eee's twisted logic, i am

[K8-EEE]

47. Ah, I love the "canard" canard

Lots of canards breeding around the DU gun cultists LOL!

[eqfan592]

60. Wow, really?

That's all you got? Really? "'canard' canard?" I honestly think we are all dumber now for having read that.....

[paulsby]

63. the "gun lover" canard is really silly

i am 100% pro RKBA. i am hardly a gun lover. i own ONE gun. i bought it when i was a detective, so i could have something more compact to carry...

i don't read gun mags. i don't really care much about guns. i just care a lot about RIGHTS.

there are certainly some RKBA advocates who DO love guns. absolutely.

fwiw, there are also people who love guns who are ANTI-RKBA.

being a gun lover is neither sufficient nor necessary when one is pro-RKBA.

and i certainly don't love abortions. i think they are usually a very sad thing. i just think it is a woman's right to choose one.

those are two entirely different things.

[X_Digger]

17. Ahh, the nuclear canard.. refuge of the weak.

Let me see.. where to begin..

1) No military uses 'assault weapons' -- militaries use full auto weapons (you did know that 'assault weapons' aren't select fire, right?)
2) "Nukes"-- you can get a nuke, if you can afford it and get regulatory approval, just like you can get machine guns, grenades, land mines, fighter jets (ask Michael Dorn), and tanks with real guns and shells. However, the consensus is that 'arms' as protected by the second amendment refers to weapons that one may carry (the whole 'bear'-ing part), and has a narrowly targeted effect. Hence the regulations to possess a hand grenade are different than a hunting rifle.
3) The 'need' canard-- Do you 'need' that sports car? 46,000 people die in car accidents every year, more than are killed by firearms. Do you 'need' chocolate? More people die from heart disease each year than guns and cars combined. Anything that contributes to heart disease is dangerous. Good thing civil rights aren't based on 'need': I'd hate to see the puritanical nitwits that would be hired to work at the Department of Need.

[K8-EEE]

19. No the point is there is a line where weapons are too dangerous

For the rest of us to allow people to have as toys or penises substitutes or whatever.

[X_Digger]

21. And the penis canard for the hat-trick!

And what makes 'assault' weapons so dangerous? Power? Granddad's 'huntin gunz' are more powerful than almost all rifles identified as 'assault weapons' in the '94 'assault weapons ban'. Capacity? It takes <2s to change magazines- I can take two "low capacity" magazines and duct tape them together, making one "high capacity" magazine. Rate of fire? These are semi-automatic (aka one and only one round fired for each press of the trigger), just like granddad's remington 750 'huntin gun'.

[paulsby]

41. nice job w/ callin out the canards

this is an excellent thing to do because it points out the illogic and emotive nature of many of these arguments...

penis
need
arm them all
nuclear weapons
etc.

canards.

the same silly ones. over and over again.

[K8-EEE]

52. LOL!! Gun cultists are ALL about canards!

Yes congrats on calling out all those common sense canards! They are so canard-y! Now lets fight to get them shiny pretty guns in dorm rooms, bars, churches and hospitals, wooohooo!!!!

[paulsby]

58. ah,. the arm them all canard

thanx for playin'

fwiw, i live in WA state.

we have guns on college campuses (perfectly legal), and even high school and elementary campuses (ok for parents to pick up kids as long as they stay in the car), churches, and hospitals.

they are banned in bars, except for LEO's.

let's look at evidence

for example, college campuses. show me EVIDENCE that allowing college kids (or anybody else on campus) of requisite age (21) and having permit (if carried concealed) leads to crime.

show me EvIDENCE.

our campuses are very safe in WA state. and yet... concealed carry is legal.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Thought you were going to whip out 'blood in the streets' and hit for the cycle.

Oh well.

[benEzra]

24. And that line is drawn at automatic weapons, .51 caliber, and sound suppression.

The gun-control debate is about the continued right of mentally competent adults with clean records to purchase/own/use NON-automatic, NON-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber, plus shotguns and a few over-.50 hunting rifles, and no one is seriously trying to change that.

That's a heck of a long way from nukes.

[PavePusher]

36. Needs, Nukes and Dicks...

you hit the canard trifecta! Quick work, for a newbbie.

Now, got anything substantial to discuss, with some proof/support/evidence, or are you just here to engage in hysterical hand-wringing and crocidile tears?

[SteveM]

37. Why do gun-controllers immeidately bring up sex-organ characteristics?

When perhaps 30% of people with access to guns are women? Does "strap one on" have additional meaning to you?

"He who first smelt it, dealt it." -- Sartre

[east texas lib]

42. You don't get to allow or disallow any choice that someone else makes regarding the RKBA...

Or their personal safety. It is quite beyond your control, and apparently that is a DAMNED good thing.

[PavePusher]

33. Nukes are not defensive weapons.

Nice strawman. It burns brightly. Please try again...

[rd_kent]

44. Only a few posts in and you use the "nuclear weapons" canard.

[K8-EEE]

48. Ah, another "canard" canard!

[rd_kent]

53. Your unwillingness to make a point and your ignorance on the issue speaks volumes.

[K8-EEE]

55. Your labeling every perfectly OBVIOUS AND VALID POINT as "canards" quacks volumes

QUACK!!

[rd_kent]

59. The "what about nukes" IS a canard and the lack of a valid point from you DOES speak to your

ignorance.

Quack back at ya.

[paulsby]

64. exactly

the 2nd amendment has long been understood to refer to personally carried arms, such as those commonly in use by an infantryman, and routinely issued.

thus, handguns and rifles...

last i checked, if i join the marines, i do not get issued a nuke

although the idea is compelling...

[benEzra]

70. OK, care to explain how the Nuclear Bogeyman Argument is an "obvious and valid point"

when the line between civilian-legal weapons and police/military/government restricted weapons is drawn at automatic and >0.51" caliber small arms?

Do you actually think nuclear weapons are a small step above non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed, under-.51" civilian firearms?

Again, the gun-control debate is about the continued right of mentally competent adults with clean records to purchase/own/use non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber, plus shotguns and a few over-.50 hunting rifles, and no one is seriously trying to change that. Pretending otherwise doesn't help your argument.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. None of your points are obvious or valid.

We are already restricted from purchasing new Assault Rifles. None made after 1986 can be registered in the NFA registry, therefore, illegal for civilian purchase and possession. Any purchased before 1986 are registered, taxed, and inspected by the BATFE and command collectors prices, because there are so few. But you knew that, right?

Explosives are always treated differently under the 2nd Amendment, than firearms. From hand grenades on up to Nuclear Weapons, explosives are not firearms, or 'arms'. They are either Ordnance, or Destructive Devices, classified as such, and controlled for civilian possession as appropriate. But you knew that right?

Right?

[rd_kent]

77. Whats the matter? Cat got your tongue or did you run away in defeat?

[eqfan592]

28. *sigh*

Seriously, you should try doing the most BASIC amount of research at least before you come in here all full of piss and vinegar.

Here's a good start.

www.guncite.com

[Euromutt]

30. Gun laws aren't what make the difference

Look at a list of spree shootings in the US, say the one on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Spree_shootings_in_the_United_States

Note that by "spree shooting," I mean instances where one gunman--sometimes two--went on the rampage and more or less openly killed a large number of people in a short period of time. You'll notice, looking at the list, that the bulk of incidents listed occurred after 1980. What's special about 1980? Aside from the fact that it's after the adoption of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, it's the year CNN went on the air, the first 24-hour rolling news channel. And the number of mass shootings appears to have kept pace with the proliferation of 24-hour rolling news channels (including Fox News, Sky News, BBC World/24 Hour, al-Jazeera, etc. etc.). These days, no matter how big a loser you are, you can become a household name on several continents just by slaughtering a bunch of random people.

Let's face it, before 1980, you at least had to murder someone famous, like John Lennon, Martin Luther King, or a Kennedy, to get noticed. And before television, even that was no guarantee; we all know John Wilkes Boothe murdered Lincoln because Lincoln is especially notable, but does anyone know off the top of their head who murdered Garfield or McKinley? How many more people are familiar with the name of Seung-Hui Cho than with the name of Gavrilo Princip? Or Woo Bum-Kon? Actually, how many people know the name of the murderer of MLK off the top of their head?

(To save you the Googling: Gavrilo Princip was the guy who shot Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914, thereby sparking the First World War. Woo Bum-Kon, a South Korean police officer, still holds the distinction of having perpetrated the worst one-man spree killing in history, when he went on the rampage in South Gyeongsang province in 1982, killing 58--including himself--and wounding another 35. King was murdered by James Ray; note that Ray wasn't trying to gain attention by killing MLK.)

Here's a contrasting story: for most of its history from its inception as an independent country, the Netherlands (aka the Republic of the Seven Provinces) suffered only one political assassination, namely William the Silent, the "Father of the Fatherland," at the hands of Balthasar Gérard, a French Catholic, in 1584. The second political assassination in Dutch history occurred 418 years later, in 2002; for 335 of those 418 years, the Netherlands had had no gun laws. Like many other western European countries, the Netherlands did not adopt restrictions on private ownership and carrying of firearms until shortly after the end of the First World War; the governments in question feared that, like the governments of Russia and Germany, they might fall prey to leftist armed revolts. (The fact that these western European governments feared being treated like the authoritarian monarchies of Russia and Germany indicates they had some legitimacy issues, to put it mildly.)

Eighty-three years after the Netherlands imposed a system of stringent licensing and registration of all firearms, Volkert van der Graaf fatally shot populist politician Pim Fortuyn in the parking lot of a television studio, using a 9mm handgun (a Spanish-made Star M-43) he'd bought off some guy in a bar in a provincial town.

Two years later, Theo van Gogh, a film director who had directed the film Submission (written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali), was murdered by Mohammed Bouyari, an Islamist of Moroccan descent, who shot Van Gogh eight times with a Croatian-made HS2000 handgun.

During 2009, the Amsterdam borough (stadsdeel) of Amsterdam Zuidoost (pop. ~86,000) suffered 22 reported shooting incidents (i.e. illegal discharges of firearms), three of which resulted in fatalities. Dutch regional police force reports state that the use of firearms in muggings and robberies has become commonplace. In 2007, the high-security courthouse in west Amsterdam in which the trial of organized crime kingpin Willem Holleeder was about to start the next day was struck by several projectiles from a rocket launcher (most likely to discourage Holleeder to turn state's evidence and rat on his former associates). In 2008, marijuana grower/trafficker Hans van Geenen was murdered, most likely in an organized crime hit, when the car he was traveling in was machine-gunned from another vehicle; at least 70 shots were fired.

The fact is, the main difference between the United States and other wealthy industrialized countries is not the availability of firearms to those intent on committing harm, but the willingness to use them. Any two-bit teenage punk can get hold of a handgun on the black market of any western European country, if he wants it badly enough, and a comparatively trivial amount of dealing drugs can get you the money required for a piece (not that you'll have the ammo or the opportunity to become proficient with it). And several mass shootings in Germany have adequately demonstrated that this is not a problem unique to the United States. Hell, the Erfurt massacre probably couldn't have happened in the US, since the perp was under 21 (but over 18; old enough to own a handgun in Germany).

[SteveM]

31. Actually, you have that choice...

and over the years we have seen the result of trying to make that choice: wide-spread liberalization (yes, that's the word) of gun laws, a huge increase in the number of firearms in civilian hands, and the election of vast quantities of right-wing loud mouths -- from county commissions to the presidency -- who only have to point to opponents advocating all that "common sense choice."

Guns don't make the society civilized or uncivilized. You can die by machete in the hundreds of thousands in Central Africa, or live in relative peace in Switzerland, where citizens keep FULL-AUTO weapons in their homes by the hundreds of thousands.

BTW, when dealing with a Constitutional protections, your choices for regulation are (and should be) limited.

[paulsby]

38. begs the question

as to what is "common sense gun control"

but fwiw, some countries have more murders than the US and yet more restrictive gun control.

others have less murders than the US, but have nearly every able adult with a full automatic in their household (see: switzerland).

there has not been a causal link established between strict gun control and lower homicide rates.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. There is at least one country that is MORE gun-crazy, and has FEWER shootings.

Ponder Switzerland for instance. A country where you CAN actually get military assault weapons. (Here you can only buy them for tens of thousands of dollars, and only if they were made before 1986)

They have fewer gun-related deaths.


Did you know, that ignoring guns, the United States has a shockingly high murder rate anyway? Fists, feet, clubs, knives, Americans are remarkably violent.


I'm sorry Mario, the princess is in another castle. Guns are not the problem.

[K8-EEE]

51. snark canard!

For dinner? Oh we are stuffed with guns already, I have no appetite for them, I'll take some common sense gun laws from column A and some civilized society from column B please. It works out pretty well for most countries. I was in France last year and felt damn safe despite (because of) not having a gun and other people not having/obsessing on guns.

[benEzra]

75. You do realize that the French can own "assault weapons", yes?

http://ar15france.com/brd/portal.php

France has more red tape to jump through than the USA, but the French have considerably more choice to own guns than the citizens of the UK, Australia, or Mexico, if I understand their laws correctly.

They also have those marvelous nuclear-powered trains...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG7Y1FSUwGg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8skXT5NQzCg

[rd_kent]

43. Canada is having a major increase with gun crime in the major cities. All by ILLEGAL guns!

Even though most guns, except hunting rifles, are very difficult to obtain.


The point is, that whether guns are banned, restricted or not regulated, CRIMINALS will still obtain them and use them.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. Once again, the mass shooting is in a "gun free" zone.

Gun free zone = Easy victim zone

One of the survivors, or deceased's family, should sue ABB for not providing adequate security.

[K8-EEE]

11. How come we're the only country that needs everywhere to be a gun zone

I'm sure they have a lot of "no gun zones" in Japan and Switzerland and guess what I've got a LOT better chances of not getting shot by a gun nut there!

[benEzra]

27. Switzerland is considerably more pro-gun than California is.

I'm sure they have a lot of "no gun zones" in Japan and Switzerland and guess what I've got a LOT better chances of not getting shot by a gun nut there!

Switzerland is considerably more pro-gun than California is. From what I can tell, a Swiss citizen can own pretty much anything the average American can, and some things we can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

National shooting competitions are also much more a part of Swiss culture than they are ours.


http://www.aarau2010.ch/


http://www.swissshooting.ch/

And you might see this at a Swiss supermarket; you darn sure won't see it in the USA:

[Euromutt]

29. In fairness, note the Swiss don't personally own their select-fire assault rifles

Those Sturmgewehr 90s are government property issued to the reservist, and the reservist can only use them for military purposes (target practice is considered a military purpose). The chap in the supermarket there is on his way home from a training exercise.

Yes, once the reservist is fully discharged, he has the option of keeping his issued weapon, though the automatic function will be disabled if he does (I don't know if anyone's actually old enough yet to have been issued a Stg.90 and been discharged).

Of course, the Swiss are so notoriously straight-laced and parochial--or they used to be at least--that there's an old joke that a Swiss man might murder his family, but there's no way he'd use his army-issue weapon to do it, because that would be misuse of government property! Unfortunately, in recent years, there has been an uptick in Swiss reservists using their rifles in that manner, so the national legislature has been kicking around the idea of not having reservists keep their weapons at home any longer, especially given that every neighboring country (except Liechtenstein) is an EU member state, and since dependency on mutual trade seems to be the most effective thing to prevent international armed conflicts, the risk that any neighboring country (e.g. Austria) would ever violate Swiss territory to outflank another (e.g. Italy) is miniscule.

Still, plenty of guns in Swiss society, and twenty years ago at least, Switzerland did have the highest percentage of homicides committed with firearms in Europe. However, at the same time, Switzerland also had the lowest homicide rate in Europe. I.e. in rates of homicides per 100,000 head of population, the Swiss killed each less often than anyone else, but when they did, they were more likely to use a firearm. This is only objectionable if you think it's worse to be shot to death than to be stabbed or beaten to death.

Note that, in line with observations made by other posters, this does not imply that "more guns = less crime." The low Swiss violent crime rate is readily explained by the Swiss cultural tendency toward being law-abiding (you'll get yelled at if you cross against the light, even if there's no car in sight), which in turn is a function of a comparatively parochial society, in which (most importantly) pretty much everybody is reasonably well-off. The overriding factor in crime rates appears to be socio-economic inequality; when certain segments of society are markedly poorer than others, with seemingly little prospect of social mobility via legitimate means, that is where crime flourishes. Which is why young, urban black males are disproportionately prone to being drawn into the illegal drug trade, for example.

[K8-EEE]

50. Intelligent reply canard!

Thank you for that!

[benEzra]

68. The Swiss can, in fact, own pretty much any Title 1 U.S.-legal firearm...

including so-called "assault weapons" and handguns, and some that are very tightly controlled here (short-barreled rifles come to mind, if I understand Swiss law correctly). Automatic weapons are much more common in Swiss homes than U.S. homes, but as Euromutt pointed out those are converted to semiautos when ownership is transferred. In the USA, however, a full auto converted to a semiauto is still treated as a full auto.

I'm not sure you read my post OR Euromutt's; replying to post titles can make your post a non-sequitur. BTW, Euromutt came here from Europe, and knows whereof he speaks.

[PavePusher]

40. Well, since "gun free zones" are pretty much an oxymoron.... n/t

[rd_kent]

45. You have very little chance of getting shot by a "gun nut" here too!

And by "gun nut" I am using YOUR definition of someone that is pro-second amendment. In fact you are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightening (an actual fact, did you know that?) than you are to get shot by a CCW permit holder, or a "gun nut" as you like to call them.


So, your premise is totally false. Care to try again?

[Euromutt]

54. Many countries are notionally almost entirely "gun free zones." Notionally.

I'll cite my own native country of the Netherlands again, because it's what I'm most familiar with.

Nominally, the entire country is a "gun free zone." If you are a legal gun owner (which requires licensing, registration of every firearm you own, and getting prior written authorization for each purchase of a firearm you make), you can only transport weapons in a locked container between your home, your gun club, and--if you're a licensed hunter--game reserves. You can only have an operable firearm on your person if you're at the gun club or in a game reserve. The Netherlands does not issue concealed carry permits. So notionally, in any public place, you should never encounter a person carrying an operable firearm who is not a police officer or a member of the armed forces (and it's pretty damn unusual to encounter a member of the armed forces with a firearm and live ammo).

The fact is, however, that I've come closer to catching a bullet in the Netherlands than I ever have in the US. I once went to the post office to find it had been robbed fifteen minutes earlier by two guys with guns, and another time, two drug dealers decided to settle a business dispute on an intersection that the tram I was on had rolled through some twenty minutes before. But, I should point out, I lived in and traveled through nastier neighborhoods in the Netherlands than I usually find myself in in the US. I've also been physically assaulted more often in the Netherlands than I have in the US, primarily for the same reason.

I would suggest that your chances of being on the receiving end of a firearm discharge depends to a much greater extent on your own socio-economic background, and that of the areas you live and work in, than it does on the legal status of private firearms ownership in your country of residence. If you live in Amsterdam Zuidoost or certain parts of south London, you have a higher chance of being shot than in just about any middle-class neighborhood in the United States.

[K8-EEE]

56. Statistically you're much safer in gun-free Netherlands

As far as gun homicides....WE'RE NUMBER ONE! WE'RE NUMBER ONE! USA! USA! woohooo!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country

And btw I have been robbed at gunpoint -- with a weapon that turned out to have been stolen from a house that no doubt felt "safe" having it there. And in no way would having had a gun made me safer, unless I was going to walk around with it in my hand ALL THE TIME, because the criminal always has the element of surprise. In fact he would have just had another gun if I would have had a gun in my purse since he took the purse right off before I even knew he was in back of me!

[K8-EEE]

57. Murder rate per capita: Netherlands vs. USA

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

You are WAY safer!

[eqfan592]

61. You're also much safer in gun filled Switzerland.

And you're at greater risk of violent crime in "gun free" England. Seriously, BASIC fucking research is all you need to do.

[paulsby]

66. switzerland is a very safe country

and yet a high percentage of people have fully automatic rifles...

in their homes...

[GreenStormCloud]

62. IOW: You do not practice situational awareness.

First, a gun should never be carried in a purse. If you need it, you have to find it among all the other stuff that is there. Also, one hand will have to hold the purse while the other hand digs for the gun. A gun should be worn on your person, accessible to one hand, not carried in something.

The use of guns is a martial art, and must be learned. Fortunately, basic competence can be achieved in a few days, as opposed to the years required by some of the martial arts. And the art can be practiced by the weak, the infirm, the elderly as well as the young and strong.

The element of surprise can usually be taken away from the criminal by being aware of your surroundings and what is going on.

My wife is alive because she was situationally aware and had a gun on her. No shots were fired. When the felon saw that she had a gun, he ran away.

Several of the regular posters to this forum have self-defense stories. All of them begin with the defender becoming aware of the danger before the criminal was able to strike.

[Euromutt]

76. Nationwide statistics have little bearing on specific neighborhoods

Yes, overall, you're less likely to fall victim to homicide in the Netherlands. That does not refute my point that you're less likely to become a victim of violent crime, including firearm crimes, if you're a resident of Amsterdam Zuidoost or Amsterdam Nieuw-West than you if reside in, say, Thurston County, WA.

And do not think for a moment the Netherlands is "gun free." As I pointed out in another post, there were 22 reported firearms discharges in Amsterdam Zuidoost (pop. ~86,000) in 2009, of which 3 resulted in a fatality. In 2008, a marijuana grower/trafficker was murdered when the car he was traveling in was riddled with machine gun fire. In 2007, parties unknown fired at least two shots from a rocket launcher at a high-security courthouse in Amsterdam Nieuw-West, the night before the trial of mobster Willem Holleeder was due to start; nobody was hurt as nobody was in the building at night (my personal hypothesis is that associates of Holleeder wanted to warn him not to turn state's evidence), but stil, a fricking rocket launcher. A Dutch regional police report from 2005 stated that "our society can hardly be imagined without firearm violence any more; increasingly, in muggings and robberies, firearms are used to threaten." And not just to threaten; in 2007, Erkan Yildiz, the owner of a convenience store in Amsterdam Noord was fatally shot in the head during the fourth armed robbery in his store (his cousin had been shot in the foot in a previous robbery).

In 2002, populist politician Pim Fortuyn (whose party was slated to do well in the upcoming general election) became the victim of the first political assassination in the Netherlands since William "the Silent" of Orange in 1584 (even though private ownership of firearms wasn't restricted until 1919); the murder weapon was a Spanish-made Star 9mm M-43, purchased off a guy in a bar in a provincial town.

In 2004, Theo van Gogh (Vincent was his great-grand-uncle, if you were wondering) was murdered by an Islamist of Moroccan descent. Van Gogh had directed the short film Submission (written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali) which called attention to the tolerance--indeed, condoning--of violence against women in Islamic cultures; Van Gogh was also noted for being distrustful of Islam in his newspaper columns and television appearances (once referring to muslim immigrant population of the Netherlands as "a fifth column of goat-fuckers"). Immediate cause of death were eight gunshot wounds, inflicted using a Croatian-made HS2000 9mm handgun (marketed as the Springfield Armory XD in the United States).

These are the high-profile cases of the past seven years. I could dig up more incidents, but I think my point is clear: ninety years of Dutch gun control failed to prevent the perpetrators of these offenses--including the first political assassination in over four centuries--from acquiring the weapons they wanted. Insofar as the use of firearms in violent crime is lower in western Europe than it is in the United States, this would seem to be more the result of offenders choosing not to use firearms, rather than offender being unable to acquire them.

And note the US non-gun homicide rate is higher than the overall homicide rate of quite a few European countries, the Netherlands included. Evidently, the comparatively high US homicide rate is not simply a result of there being more firearms in circulation. The statistics (notably from the International Criminal Victims Survey) indicate that levels of non-fatal violent crime in the United States are not remarkably high compared to other wealthy countries (especially north-western Europe, and particularly the UK), but when Americans do get violent, they have a stronger tendency to go all the way to homicide. And about 1/3 of the time, they don't use a firearm to commit the killing.

So the US has the highest firearm homicide rate in the world. Probably the highest firearm suicide rate, too. So what? Guns are a means, not a cause; Americans make comparatively frequent use of guns to kill others or themselves because they can get their hands on a gun, but the urge to inflict lethal harm on others or self isn't created by the availability of a firearm. Compare the Russian Federation: the last time the Russian government published any figures (several years ago), the Russian homicide rate was three to five times that of the United States. Russian gun control is pretty stringent; a Russian citizen can apply for a permit for a single- or double-barreled smoothbore long gun (i.e. a shotgun) and after five years, he becomes eligible to apply for a permit for a repeater or a rifled long gun. Russian private citizens cannot legally purchase a handgun, period. In spite of this, Russians murder each other about four times as often as Americans do, and the fact that they do primarily by stabbing or beating each other to death doesn't make the victims any less dead. It's pretty much the same story in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic republics.

Similarly, the American suicide rate isn't remarkably high, comparatively speaking. Among wealthy industrialized nations, the French, Germans, Swedes and especially the Japanese* do themselves in more frequently than Americans. Among less wealthy industrialized nations, the citizens of the aforementioned former Soviet republics are about as equally skilled at doing themselves in as they are at doing in others. But where firearms are the most popular method of suicide in the US, in the rest of the world it's self-asphyxiation (mostly by hanging). Relatively low availability of firearms presents no impediment to suicide, especially not when rope, trains and points of high elevation (buildings, bridges, waterfalls, etc.) aren't outlawed.

And in no way would having had a gun made me safer, unless I was going to walk around with it in my hand ALL THE TIME, because the criminal always has the element of surprise. In fact he would have just had another gun if I would have had a gun in my purse since he took the purse right off before I even knew he was in back of me!

Okay, so you are too oblivious of your surroundings to derive any benefit from carrying a firearm for defensive purposes. That doesn't mean the rest of us are as well. Even studies by researchers openly hostile to private firearms ownership have produced estimated findings that, in the mid-1990s (when violent crime rates were higher than they are now), there were 900,000-1.5 million instances per year of gun owners using a firearm to prevent the completion of a physical or sexual assault, robbery, or residential burglary with the occupants present (aka a "hot" burglary or "home invasion"). Other studies indicate the number of defensive gun uses (DGUs) may be much higher.

That said, there are a number of highly regarded firearms instructors who will tell you that in the event of a "simple" mugging, it is a safer course of action to hand over your wallet or purse (if you want to really play it safe, carry a "fake" wallet containing, say, $50 in cash plus some expired plastic, but nothing you can't live without, to hand over) and just be a good witness, and only start looking for an opportunity to use lethal force if it looks like your assailant is after more than just your wallet or purse.

And if you carry a firearm, don't carry it in your purse. Okay, I'm a guy, so maybe that's easy for me to say, so read a woman's take on the matter: http://www.corneredcat.com/Holster/purse.aspx

* - The Japanese language has two terms to describe domestic murder-suicide; muri-shinju indicates that one parent murders one or more family members and then commits suicide, whereas ikka-shinju indicates that the whole family consented to a death pact in which the parents kill the children and then themselves (see: http://www.glocom.org/special_topics/social_trends/20040107_trends_s65/index.html). Even so, muri-shinju appears (on average) to be a daily occurrence in Japan. Somewhat disturbingly, I have been given to understand (though I can not vouch for the accuracy of this information) that all victims of domestic murder-suicides are counted as suicides, which may go some way to explaining why the Japanese homicide rate is comparatively low, and the suicide rate comparatively high.