Just the facts mam

[sirs]

The professor likes to apply unconventional fuzzy math to the ongoing claims of more guns more people shot.  Its much along the lines of the more people are born, the more people will die.  It doesn't take any current statistics into consideration (if he did, he'd see have to acknowledge the massive flaw in his claim, since presently we have been saturated with guns over the last several decades, and there has been no corroborating evidence of increased gun murders).

Ironically, any increase in murders, are taking place in locations with far stricter gun laws.  And as this thread demonstrated at the beginning, NOTHING currently being proposed would have stopped the recent mass murders.  Hoof PASSED a background check.  And the illegal immigrant stole his FROM A FEDERAL PATROL CAR

Violent crime, as Plane and others have been able to report, actually demonstrates a DECREASE, despite MORE guns.  Those are just the facts

[Plane]

Swiss military service would be acceptable, since Switzerland has not started a war or even fought in one since the 1700's. But that is not related to their gun laws, other than soldiers getting some training in gun safety, which would be a good thing.

  Suits me.

   The Swiss have wisely maintained a relatively strong military for centuries , which combined with their terrain advantages has allowed them to have a durable neutrality while the rest of Europe has periodically burned.

    This seems entirely within the sprit of a "well regulated militia" being a critical need for the nation.

     I don't see the NRA being against it either, this is close to their original purpose.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Swiss require registration on guns and ammo.  The NRA hates that idea.

[sirs]

a) because it serves no purpose in preventing someone from being shot
b) it does nothing but provide the Federal Government an exact count of which law abiding folks do have weapons, and what kind.  Why the hell would they need to know that? They're not the ones committing the the vast majority of the crimes. 

I mean, if they can't even run a simple background check on a felon, what gives you any sense they could manage such an exponentially huge and costly database, that again serves no other purpose but provide the government a laundry list of what legal gun owners have/own??

[sirs]

The point Plane was trying to allude to, one you were apparently ok with, that the NRA would also likely be ok with, that the Swiss do, is to mandate some form of military service and gun training to all Americans.  You're ok with that, right xo?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The problem with compulsory military service in the US is that it makes military adventures too easy. There are fortunes made in making weapons. The Military Industrial complex loves wars, as do all those contractors, and of course, promotions are much more available when the military is fighting.

The Swiss military has never engaged in invading anything for any purpose. The Swiss military has been an entirely defensive force for centuries, unlike the US, that has bases in dozens of countries and has invaded many times since WWII. So I oppose a compulsory military for the US, while it is a good idea for nonaggressive nations like the Swedes and the Swiss.

I have nothing against people being trained to use guns safely if GUNS ARE REGISTERED in a NATIONAL DATABASE that is available to law enforcement.
The NRA opposes any sort of registration, because it derives its income from gun nuts who stockpile weapons, too many of whom are mentally unstable.

[sirs]

The problem with compulsory military service in the US is that it makes military adventures too easy.

But you're ok with that, since that's part of the "Swiss model", you keep harping on

The Swiss military has never engaged in invading anything for any purpose.

Irrelvent.  The point is the mandating of military service

I have nothing against people being trained to use guns safely if GUNS ARE REGISTERED in a NATIONAL DATABASE that is available to law enforcement.

WHY??  That in NO WAY prevents any one from getting shot, which "supposedly" is your big issue.  But if we were to follow the Swiss model, per your parameters, everyone would be mandated to be trained in using a gun safely. 

Registering does nothing in firearms training.  Not to mention that the bad gun nut will still murder with his illegally aquired gun, but perhaps have had more training to kill more effeciently

The NRA opposes any sort of registration, because it derives its income from gun nuts who stockpile weapons, too many of whom are mentally unstable.

a) there is no connection with registering and some determination of mental instability
b) its opposed because it does nothing to address the supposed issue of gun violence, while providing the Federal government a list of all the LAW ABIDING gun owners and what they have.  Nothing more

You also have yet to address the issue that if the Fed can't even handle a simple background check, what the hell is a massive tax payer funded database supposed to provide in the way of preventing gun deaths??

[Xavier_Onassis]

I believe what I said and no amount of blather from you am I going to take seriously.

The fact is this:

The more guns there are, the more people will get shot.
If you own a gun, the odds of you or someone in your family getting shot is greater than if you do not.

[sirs]

That's sophistry, not a fact, since its just as much a fact that the more people are born, the more will die.  One does not directly lead to the other.  And as long as its more bad gun nuts getting shot, all the better. 

Guns have no mind of their own, they can not shoot anyone they don't like.  it requires a person.  If that person is a good gun nut, rarely will anything bad happen.  If its a bad gun nut, they're going to obtain their gun regardless.  Steal it from a Federal officer's car in San Francisco even, which would have occurred regardless of any registering or even civilian banning

But don't think anyone else doesn't notice the overt dodge on being unable to support what registration is supposed to do in preventing people from getting shot, if that's supposedly your big cause.  Or your apparent support of the Swiss model's mandating of military service, as part of their firearms policy

[Xavier_Onassis]

If you are drafted into the Swiss Army there is NO CHANCE that you will be sent to Korea, Iraq or Kirghistan. You will only be called upon to defend the Swiss Republic. This has not been the case with the American army since the Civil War. So the draft in Switzerland is not at all like the draft in the US.

[sirs]

You're the one that keeps barking about the "Swiss model".  That INLCUDES MANDATORY military service, as part of being trained in firearms.  Are you now backing off the Swiss model??

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, I am saying that the Swiss Army is in no way comparable to the US Army. So FORGIT that Shit.
Just register the guns.

This country is NOT going to reimpose the draft.

And until there are fewer guns, more people will get shot.

[sirs]

Comparable armies are irrelevent, and this isn't about reimposing the draft.  They're not being drafted for potential war.  The issue is that as part of the Swiss model for so many guns in their country, is that civilians are mandated to serve some military time. 

So, until you can demonstrate exactly how law abiding U.S. citizens simply registering their weapons into a massive tax payer payed Federal database is going to prevent people from being shot, the only viable aspect of the Swiss model that would decrease the amount of "people being shot" is their compulsory military service requirement with its directly connected firearms training, as part of that requirement

[Plane]

The problem with compulsory military service in the US is that it makes military adventures too easy. ....

  No.

   This is an entirely political difference. It is never the Army and Navy deciding that it is time to Bomb Bosnia or invade Grenada. The Swiss people have a remarkably steady habit that their leadership is aware of.

    The Swiss have often been strong enough to bite off a bit of neighboring territory and have not done it. With sometimes the strongest military in Europe they have been politically the most durable and Pacifistic democracy of human history. I wonder if a victorious Hitler would have long respected their neutrality, probably not , there is a factor of luck involved also.

     The military of the USA is as strong as any military has ever been , especially if considered relative to the strength of the potential opponents, but this is now , with an all volunteer force.

     A universal militia would be best if it left no one out. The sons of the wealthy , the poor , the Democrats of the West and the Republicans of the Heartland , all alike.

      What would make it politically hard to start a war , would be having no one at all shielded from the negative effect. Even Oligarchs and Acherons.

      The total strength of a more amateur military might not be much different , even with everyone drafted , we would certainly not draft everyone at once.

http://www.hood.army.mil/history/1950/elvis.htm

[Xavier_Onassis]

The fact is that with modern weapons, we do not need as many soldiers as would result from drafting everyone.
During Vietnam, it was fairly easy to avoid the draft. I did it, and I know dozens more that also did it. And more still simply drew a low number, after they started assigning numbers to dates.

By the end of what would have been Nixon's second term, they had to call five men to get one soldier. Many times more simply refused to answer the summons. They went to Canada, Sweden, and lots of other places. Ford had to turn it all over to the ARVN, and they tended to not think the cause was worth dying for, which it wasn't.

And no, I am not at all ashamed that I managed to avoid getting shot at for no good reason in a useless war that should never have been started.