I agree, it is wrong to not have the right to defend oneself

that is not the issue though


there are some of us concerned with 'reasonable' forms of defense

who seek reasonable regulation of the arms used for such defense and the reasonable assessment of those who would own such arms,,,

as I stated, my mother has a gun, my uncle has a gun and killed a home invader with it

all that was required was a source to deliver the BULLET,, it was not reasonable(imho) that that source be able to deliver 20 or 30 bullets in ten seconds

not having THAT type of arm had nothing to do with my uncle using his right to 'defend' himself,,

Thanks Ms Harmony. Canadians overall are pretty laid back. My experiences meeting Americans has always been good and there are some great people here on Mingles.

Quite correct, but what YOU inferred IS your problem.



Of course. That much is obvious to all.



That too is obvious to all, but it would have been more honest to say statistical correlations can only (at best) SUGGEST causes and can NEVER PROVE them.

Knowing that, you nevertheless erroneously inferred that there might be one if we take culture into account. You know or should know that your true statement that "there is no clear causal relation between the gun law and the gun violence " should not have been used to insidiously suggest your hypothesis of unnamed and vague "cultural differences" that haven't even been considered in the data somehow indicate that a causal relationship exists between gun law and gun violence when cultural differences are taken into account (which they weren't), which you did when you referred to "it" in the very next line, which said "it relies heavily on the combination of the laws and the CULTURE." What was "it" if not the suggestion that taking culture into account would prove a causal relation in the statistics?

You know all this stuff I'm sure. Why are you being deceptively dishonest about it?



Wouldn't you say that gun regulation should be in line with the Constitution and specifically with the Second Amendment, or are you one of those who would sacrifice your liberty (and everyone else's) for (a false sense of) safety?

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.



Again you know (or should know) that that no such pattern can be PROVED in ANY statistical inference, yet you continue to say the word as though proof could somehow exist. Worse than that you completely discount the supreme LAW of your country as though it didn't even exist, by not even mentioning the constitutional ramifications of your views, preferring to chase instead the red herring of personal safety at the expense of everyone else's rights.



…by presenting meaningless statistics out of context as though they somehow prove an assertion that more guns = more crime.



Not to anyone watching for it anyway.



Yes it does, which is why I constantly try to point to Switzerland as the cultural example Americans should be living by, as their gun culture is the living manifestation of the Second Amendment of another country altogether. (I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what that country is.)

I see the claim of 'deceptively dishonest'

and raise it with a 'I think thou doth protest too much'

what was stated still hasnt changed regardless of how someone else would have worded it

and yes, Switzerland is a good example of both armed citizens and REGULATED gun ownership

ID have no problem adapting to a style closer to Switzerlands

To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.[citation needed]
To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller. The seller is also required to see some official ID from the purchaser, for such sales are only allowed to Swiss nationals and foreigners with a valid residence permit, with the exception of those foreigners that come from certain countries (Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Albania, Algeria), to whom such sales are not allowed even if they do have a residence permit. Foreigners without a residence permit or from countries on the ban list must ask for a special permit.[citation needed]
After turning 18, any individual can buy singleshot or semiautomatic long arms (breech-loading or muzzle-loading) without a permit (so-called "free arms"). Likewise, members of a recognized rifle association do not need a buying permit for purchasing antique repeaters, and hunters do not need one for buying typical hunting rifles.[citation needed]
Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessories such as sound suppressors ("silencers") is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability). The purchase of such items is however legal with a special permit issued by cantonal police. The issuance of such a permit requires additional requirements to be met, e.g. the possession of a specific gun locker.[citation needed]
Most types of ammunition are available for commercial sale, including full metal jacket bullet calibres for military-issue weapons; hollow point rounds are only permitted for hunters. Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer's name in a bound book.[citation needed]

[edit] Changes due to the Schengen treaty

The rules laid out above were changed on 1 December 2008 as Switzerland joined the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change:
Unlawful possession of guns will be punished.
Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit. Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market through this registration requirement.
Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.
Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law.
While the above mentioned "free arms" remain exempt from the weapon acquisition permit, the vendor is required to notify the local arms bureau of the sale.


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

I don't think its even possible to "protest too much" when trying to clarify ambiguities in the way information is presented to people.

And of course what has already been written, once published to the public cannot be changed, so it will always stand "as is" without clarification of one sort or another.

With regard to the Schengen Agreement (later 'absorbed" by the Amsterdam Treaty), I fear the Swiss people may have made a big mistake in relinquishing their sovereignty to the EU…Time will tell.

I feel necessary to bring attention to the fact that a gun, by itself, is useless without someone wielding it. Therefore it is the intent of the person using said firearm which brings about the violence that all of us would love to see go away. Perhaps thats what we should focus on... maybe? Many cutbacks were passed severely limiting the number of people who were treated with mental illness, forcing these facilities to put their patients out of the streets, untreated. I am thinking this should be addressed long before removing freedom from honest citizens.

Furthermore, other countries have very different moving parts than we do. And in order to determine the effectiveness of gun control in these countries one must take into account many other laws, freedoms, and each country's individual culture.

If we are serious about preventing mass shootings, we have to look at the cause of the problem, which in no way can even be loosely translated into gun ownership.

I think its time americans got off their butts and started looking for real solutions instead of just acting out of fear an settling for the path of least resistance.

Also, using the logic of gun laws to prevent violent crimes, can one not say that outlawing forks will help with the epidemic of overeating? Overeating is killing far more people in this country than firearms are... So i wounder how this new law against forks would effect this issue...

Just a thought...

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Here's the thing though.....once you give the government the right to regulate one thing....you open the door immediately to them regulating something else. You cannot give them that chance, because history has proven many times over for those who actually know it that they NEVER stop with one thing. Guns, ESPECIALLY guns given that they can be used against them.....would be no different.

Furthermore here, I have to comment on this.....I generally stay away from these topics around here anymore but I can't not say something about this. You said:

"and England may be an example where crime in general went up, because maybe people arent scared their crimes will get them killed

but thats not a negative to me, as Im not an advocate of people losing their lives over things like stealing or trespassing,,, "

So you're seriously going to tell me.....that when the option is give the criminal a serious deterrent to committing a crime knowing he or she could be risking their life in the process or having nothing at all to keep them from doing it basically....you'd rather have nothing? Really? There's no words for how absolutely insane that is, truly.

When you commit a crime or try to commit one, your right to be protected ends right there.....if you get shot and die, that's your own fault, should have thought about that consequence before you decided to do whatever you were trying to do.

It is sad it happens that way at times? Yes, but the person brought it on themselves when they tried to commit the crime in the first place. Don't wanna die, then don't do the crime simple as that. Is it crude? Maybe so, but why should we be at all sympathetic to someone who chose to rob or steal? They made the mistake, so they need to deal with it.

mharmony is very often ambiguous. Sometimes vague.

But she always tries to remain respectful and polite.

In Britain you can get put in jail for shooting a home invader and the home invader can sue you for injuries.

Its ridiculous.

Personally, I like the "make my day" law in Colorado.

Same, and sad thing is it's getting that way here too, my friend's cousin got into trouble once over something similar to that a long time ago.

The one being attacked needs the protection more than the attacker, bottom line.

I can see a time in the future if you shoot a home invader or a rapist, you should probably just get rid of the body. LOL

I dont agree, people steal out of desperation, I feel if it isnt an act of violence, death should not be an acceptable option

life is life, even someone desperate enough to steal has a life that does not deserve DEATH




and this
So you're seriously going to tell me.....that when the option is give the criminal a serious deterrent to committing a crime knowing he or she could be risking their life in the process or having nothing at all to keep them from doing it basically....you'd rather have nothing? Really? There's no words for how absolutely insane that is, truly.



was never my position as I dont believe the only two options are giving a deterrent or nothing at all

the third option is in between, having deterrents, that are reasonable

a criminal is gonna die if you shoot them in fatal areas whether the bullet comes from a handgun or a semi,, I dont thinkk they really care about the difference

but people caught in the crossfire, or without time to react in self defense might,,,

if someone is in the act of a violent crime like rape, a violent response to me seems 'reasonable'

it seems less reasonable to shoot someone running away with property because they wont stop and put it down,,,

so what's the better option? do nothing, or rely on police to handle it when they may well fail you? life isn't always simple msharmony I am sorry to tell you, sometimes you have to do what you have to do to defend yourself and your property.

and also......as far as the death thing goes.....firstly it's not always about killing the person, it's more them KNOWING you could or could wound them that is the thing. Obviously you don't want to have to, but if you have that ability you are much more likely to deter them from coming after you than if you do not.

And regardless I will say it again, if you do the crime, you get no sympathy from me. Your right to be protected ends where you cross someone elses rights. At that point you deserve what you get.

Also about crossfire, you can make the same argument for cops here, but they still are allowed to carry a gun aren't they? If they can use a gun to defend themselves or someone else why can't we? Again life is just not simple.....the bystander thing sucks but it can happen, it's not a good enough reason to take away everyone's right to self defense based on potential alone.

I agree. I would only shoot someone if I was in fear of my life or my family's lives.

For burglary, I'd sick my dog on them.

I never would propose that life is simple

what is more likely is a long list
more likely, if you have a gun, for someone else to get a hold of it(as in Adam Lanza) and harm others

more likely, if you have a gun, for someone else (a child) to get ahold of it and harm themself

its not as simple as deterring,, human life is sacred to me,, if thats liberal or unpatriotic, so be it

all crime is not deserving of a death penalty, as our own laws indicate

but we probably can deter lesser crimes by making people fear there are weapons that may kill them

but Id rather risk those lesser crimes where people SURVIVE to avoid people dying unnecessarily,,,

I think it depends on what the burglar is trying to steal. If a man broke into your house and you got the drop on him with your gun, and you saw he was only stealing some food & maybe some blankets, would you shoot him, tell him to drop the stuff and leave, or give him the stuff you could spare & help him carry it out?...Myself, I'd be inclined to help him "steal" it and maybe slip him a few bucks to boot.