Living with Guns...The Swiss Way

[Xavier_Onassis]

Perhaps the Swiss are better looking than sirs.

The ones I know are also a LOT SMARTER.

Again, I am not saying that the US should become Switzerland, just that if the US adopted Swiss gun control, we could expect to see fewer Gun Nut Massacres. It certainly would not cause more of them.

Should a majority of Americans tolerate bimonthly massacres in order to support guns in the hands of morons who should never be allowed to touch a gun?

I do not think so.

And no, more guns make no one safer. If sirs owns fifty guns we are no safer than if he owns one or seventeen. He is a Useless Gun Nut, and protects no one.

[sirs]

Should a majority of Americans suffer 7x more death, just to appease the conscience of supposed know-it-all leftists, trying to unfairly compare our country to the Swiss?

I think not

Not to mention the myth of "bimonthly massacres" and protecting no one.  Anyone & everyone around me is being protected at any given time.  But when all you have is lying and the emotion of using a tragedy in your quiver of dialog, to push an ideological socialist agenda, that's what you get...the sacrificing of so many more potential deaths to bring about their Utopian fascist/socialist pipe-dream of a society

[Xavier_Onassis]

You protect no one, except yourself, when actually wearing or carrying a loaded gun.

[sirs]

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  Anyone & EVERYONE immediately near me has a level of protection they would not otherwise have.  Sorry to burst that imaginary bubble as well

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is only when you are armed and properly dangerous.
I doubt that is most of the time.

If you had fifty guns, you would be no more dangerous than if you had only two.

[sirs]

That is only when you are armed and properly dangerous.
I doubt that is most of the time.

Doubt all you want.  That's what makes it a deterrent, since no one else knows.  And fyi, I only carry one at a time.  Its not practical or necessary to me, for any more than that.

[Plane]

  As a thought experiment :

   Lets imagine doubling the number of gun free zones in the US.

    I don't think that this would cause an immediate doubling of massacres.

      For this reason; even though gun free zones are just as needed for a massacre to happen as the guns are, there are many gun free zones that go unused by murderous maniacs every year, so there must already be plenty of gun free zones  for each potential murderer to choose between.

      So doubling the number of gun free zones might make no impact on public safety , or a very small difference as murderers might enjoy slightly greater convenience.

      Cutting the number of gun free zones in half might for the same reasons have little impact , half as many as we now have would still be many more venues for mayhem than we have madmen ready to use them.

       These guys are fewer than one in a million of us , probably by a factor of five or more, not enough to fill a single prison. This suggests that the scarce resource that could be curtailed most profitably is the guy willing to commit such a crime. I wish this were really simple , but the rare individual ready to commit mass murder is not obvious to detection and their small numbers make them hard to find not like a needle in a hay stack , but like a needle in a needle stack.

        The simplest feasible means of making a large reduction in mass murder might be the 100% elimination of one of the three requirements. Guns , collections of helpless victims, or miscreants of this peculiar type.

        I suggest that for the USA the simplest and cheapest part of this triangle to eliminate would be gun free zones. This might not reduce the number of miscreants nor  disarm them , but whatever fraction of them are cowardly would be out of the game .

[kimba1]

S.f. schools i think are all gun free zones and dont recall any incidents. I think we have way less knowledge on this subject. Maybe its none of these factors.  As i get olders i notice we all tends to assume we know things and refuse to research on certain matters. Guns maybe one of them. I tend agree since both sides quickly are blaming the other on this subject. The very tragic downside is while these opinions fly people are still at risk.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Allowing people to carry guns everywhere is insanity.  Guns in college dorms, guns in bars, guns in churches, guns everywhere.
That is surely going to lead to even more massacres.

[sirs]

Not if they're in law abiding responsible gun owners' hands.  Quite the opposite in fact

[Xavier_Onassis]

Then gun owners have to be registered and vetted far better than we do now.
Not all gun owners are responsible and some of those who are get drunk or high or get road rage and such.
You want even nutjobs like Zimmerman to run about packing heat everywhere.

Rest easy, sirs, they will not take your beloved guns away and the massacres will continue.
A small price to pay for your sense of satisfaction.\

Nonetheless, the more guns are out there, the more people are gonna get shot.

[sirs]

No, they don't, and you're right, the Government won't be confiscating our guns, since we won't be registering them for the Federal Government to track which law abiding gun owers have them

[Xavier_Onassis]

Next time we have another mass murder, you will say the same stupid crap. Why? Because you are stupid, dumber than a sack of hammers.

More guns will always result in more people shot, unless there is a greater effort to control who owns guns.
And the fault will be idiots like you.

[sirs]

..and next time we do have an infrequent mass murder, I'll again remind you that at MINIMUM, SEVEN TIMES MORE LIVES SAVED, with that same gun.  Why?...because you don't care who or how many more people dies, so long as your prescious socialist/fascist agenda is pushed forward

Ignorance is indeed the cornerstone of liberal think

[Xavier_Onassis]

What bullcrap.

Mass murders in the US happen about every two months.

More guns mean more people get shot.