My next door neighbor got shot!

[Shawnee123]

You kill a lot less people when all you have is rocks.

Nice point, Mr tw.

[SamIam]

Oh, in a regular battle or something, I'd much rather be on the side which has guns, rather than the side which has rocks.

My bias comes from a terrifying incident in my own life when an ex-boyfriend went psycho on me and tried to strangle me with his bare hands. That boy didn't need a gun - no siree. I almost ate the big cookie that time.

Although, then again if he'd had a gun I might not be here for sure. I can see both sides of the question, I guess.

I feel so sorry for Brenda. She must have been absolutely terrified. And I wonder if she'll ever be able to work again after her injury. I feel scared just having been the next door neighbor.

[jinx]

How awful Sam... I feel bad for both of you. I'm trying to decide if it would be more/less traumatic to be attacked by a random stranger instead... I guess it doesn't matter.

[squirell nutkin]

Sam, that shit is scary. Prolly the good news is in terms of randomness, that's all the closer you'll get.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

Because in countries where that relationship exists, the 'gun control' that politics so fears is required in places such as Switzerland. In Switzerland your gun ownership is heavily regulated that includes constant military training and consequences for using a gun without that training.

Originally Posted by tw

Because in countries where that relationship exists, the 'gun control' that politics so fear is required in places such as Switzerland. In Switzerland gun ownership is heavily regulated that includes constant military training, guns that are always traceable, and consequences for using a gun without that training.

Good point(s)?

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by tw

Because in countries where that relationship exists, the 'gun control' that politics so fear is required in places such as Switzerland. In Switzerland gun ownership is heavily regulated that includes constant military training, guns that are always traceable, and consequences for using a gun without that training.

Originally Posted by Classicman

Good point(s)?

I for one don't feel these are good points. It is relatively easy to purchase a rifle in Switzerland and shooting clubs abound.

From Wikipedia on Swiss gun laws:

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.

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by SamIam

I for one don't feel these are good points.

I was referring to the two posts which are virtually identical.
I'll have to go look for the article that I read earlier this week countering the "less guns less violent crime" theory.


Sam, I am so sorry for you. At least the son is in custody and will hopefully never see the light of day again, if not worse.

[classicman]

For now . . .

Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully-automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation.[34]

In an extensive series of studies of large, nationally representative samples of crime incidents, criminologist Gary Kleck found that crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. This was so, even though the victims using guns typically faced more dangerous circumstances than other victims. The findings applied to both robberies and assaults.[82] Other research on rape indicated that although victims rarely resisted with guns, those using other weapons were less likely to be raped, and no more likely to suffer other injuries besides rape itself, than victims who did not resist, or resisted without weapons.[83] There is no evidence that victim use of a gun for self-protection provokes offenders into attacking the defending victim or results in the offender taking the gun away and using it against the victim.[84]

Kleck has also shown, in his own national survey, and in other surveys with smaller sample sizes, that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are probably substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns.[85] Thus, defensive gun use by victims is both effective and, relative to criminal uses, frequent. In a largely approving review of Kleck's book Point Blank (1991) in the journal Political Psychology, Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States.[86]

The economist John Lott, in his book More Guns, Less Crime, states that laws which make it easier for law-abiding citizens to get a permit to carry a gun in public places, cause reductions in crime. Lott's results suggest that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms deters crime because potential criminals do not know who may or may not be carrying a firearm. Lott's data came from the FBI's crime statistics from all 3,054 US counties.[87]

Critics, mostly gun-control advocates, have asserted that Lott's county-based crime data were largely meaningless because they did not reflect actual rates of crime in all the counties that Lott studied, but rather the number of crimes occurring in whatever local jurisdictions (towns and cities) that happened to report their crime statistics to state authorities. Thus, some of the supposed crime drops that Lott attributed to the new carry laws could merely have been the result of fewer local police forces reporting crime statistics. Lott answered their assertions by publishing his study and noting that this fact was taken into account by using the same police agencies that reported their statistics both before and after the new concealed carry laws took effect.

The efficacy of gun control legislation at reducing the availability of guns has been challenged by, among others, the testimony of criminals that they do not obey gun control laws, and by the lack of evidence of any efficacy of such laws in reducing violent crime. The most thorough analysis of the impact of gun control laws, by Kleck, covered 18 major types of gun control and every major type of violent crime or violence (including suicide), and found that gun laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates.

[SamIam]

Yep. We are in agreement on this issue, Classic. (Lets not risk discussing it on the politics forum, though. Might break the spell!)

[squirell nutkin]

I think tw might have been thinking of Germany's gun laws which are fairly strict:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

Current laws

After 1945, the Allied Forces commanded the complete disarming of Germany. Even German police officers were initially not allowed to carry firearms. Private ownership of firearms was not allowed until after 1956[8]. The legal status returned essentially to that of the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928. The regulation of the matter was thoroughly revised in 1972, when the new Federal Weapons Act (Bundeswaffengesetz) became effective.
In Germany the possession of any firearm with a fire energy exceeding 7.5 Joule requires a valid firearms ownership license for any particular weapon. The current Federal Weapons Act adopts a two-tiered approach to firearms licensing.
A firearms ownership license (Waffenbesitzkarte) must be obtained before a weapon can be purchased. Owners of multiple firearms need separate ownership licenses for every single firearm they own. It entitles owners to purchase firearms and handle them on their own property and any private property with property owner consent. On public premises, a licensed firearm must be transported unloaded and in a stable, fully enclosing, locked container. A weapons ownership license does not entitle the owner to shoot the weapon or carry it on public premises without the prescribed container. Firearms ownership licenses are valid three years or less, and owners must obtain mandatory insurance and a means to securely store the weapon on their premises (a weapons locker). Blanket ownership licenses are sometimes issued to arms dealers.
A number of criteria must be met before a firearms ownership license is issued:
age of consent (18 years for rimfire calibers/21 years for higher calibers) (§ 4 WaffG)
trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
necessity (§ 8 WaffG) (Necessity is automatically assumed present for licensed hunters and owners of a carry permits (Waffenschein)).
Persons who are
convicted felons
have a record of mental disorder or
are deemed unreliable (which includes people with drug or alcohol addiction histories and known violent or aggressive persons)
are barred from obtaining a firearms ownership license.

[Cicero]

How is she now?

[SamIam]

I don't know how she's doing at this point. The police came and questioned me, but they didn't tell me anything except that she was airlifted to Grand Junction which is like 300 miles away. I couldn't tell the police much either - just that I could hear the two of them arguing. The irony is that I was actually going to call 911 myself, but then all the shouting suddenly stopped, so I thought it was OK. Firecrackers! Boy, was I nieve or what?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by classicman

Good point(s)?

Don't be a dick.

[Shawnee123]

So this local guy, church-going man, goes into apartment of wife, a teacher, he is separated from: they were all to go swimming, they had attended marriage counseling. Something happened, and he didn't kill the wife, but his 21 (?) year old stepson. Took his 7 year old son and went on the run. Eventually he dropped the kid at relatives and returned to the area. After a chase he was arrested. At court, film shows him to be pretty lacksadaisacal (hi, have a nice day) in spite of the fact he and his glock put a few rounds in a now-dead and by all reports (my ex plays music at these people's church) a very nice young man. This apartment was above my nephew and nephew's fiancee's apartment.

What the hell is wrong with people? Same things that have been wrong since the beginning of time, same things that will be with us forever. Small town is not immune, never has been...it's just so much less than urban areas (like where I work.)

I hope your neighbor recovers and with time it doesn't seem so scary. Terrible when something happens so close because it does, in a way, happen to you too.

[wanderer]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

You kill a lot less people when all you have is rocks.

Agreed......but the degradation of society values is also a big factor to be taken into account. Sure there would have been lesser domestic violence I guess had there been guns back in days of just rocks.
(I can't help imagining Alexander standing with an automatic rifle though)