Switzerland village shocked as man allegedly opens fire with vintage military rifle, killing 3

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
I was actually in this area a few years back and I remember the gun shops, tons of Uzis and shotguns etc. The fact that this guy was using a vintage rifle shows that gun control does work, if this was anything like the States, then it could well have been a more effective type of weapon with potentially more casualties.

edit on 3-1-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

Seriously? You mention how the gun shops are full of Uzis etc showing Switzerland has little gun control and then claim because the article says he used a vintage rifle somehow gun control works? Please connect the dots for us but first clear up a few things will you?

Most vintage military rifles are semi automatic and hold at least 10 rounds back to WWI but semi autos were around even then and were invented as far back as the 19th century. They were just not as prevalent and we do not know what type of rifle it was whether it was a semi auto or not.

Second if he could have bought an Uzi in a gun shop how is it gun control works?

Thirdly if places like NY LA and Chicago have some of the strictest gun control on the planet yet some of the highest crime rates proving gun control does not work how can one claim it does?

Fourth and last but not least in America deaths caused by people using guns only account for 1.5 percent the million of deaths and I am sure Switzerland's percentage is probably lower for their country which means there are hundreds of things far more dangerous then guns to be worried about like car accidents and doctors for instance that are in the top few for causing death... You are hundreds of times more likely to die at the hands of a doctor or in a car accident then by someone using a gun!

So if you will clear those discrepancies up for us maybe then you can explain how his using a vintage rifle shows gun control works since 3 people are still dead and their families grieving and 2 seriously wounded?

At the risk of repeating myself (and boring even myself)...

You can't trust the general public with WMD.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
I was actually in this area a few years back and I remember the gun shops, tons of Uzis and shotguns etc. The fact that this guy was using a vintage rifle shows that gun control does work, if this was anything like the States, then it could well have been a more effective type of weapon with potentially more casualties.

edit on 3-1-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

Seriously? You mention how the gun shops are full of Uzis etc showing Switzerland has little gun control and then claim because the article says he used a vintage rifle somehow gun control works? Please connect the dots for us but first clear up a few things will you?

Most vintage military rifles are semi automatic and hold at least 10 rounds back to WWI but semi autos were around even then and were invented as far back as the 19th century. They were just not as prevalent and we do not know what type of rifle it was whether it was a semi auto or not.

Second if he could have bought an Uzi in a gun shop how is it gun control works?

Thirdly if places like NY LA and Chicago have some of the strictest gun control on the planet yet some of the highest crime rates proving gun control does not work how can one claim it does?

Fourth and last but not least in America deaths caused by people using guns only account for 1.5 percent the million of deaths and I am sure Switzerland's percentage is probably lower for their country which means there are hundreds of things far more dangerous then guns to be worried about like car accidents and doctors for instance that are in the top few for causing death... You are hundreds of times more likely to die at the hands of a doctor or in a car accident then by someone using a gun!

So if you will clear those discrepancies up for us maybe then you can explain how his using a vintage rifle shows gun control works since 3 people are still dead and their families grieving and 2 seriously wounded?

edit on 3-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

The only discrepancy is because you have no idea what semi auto is...........like most people in favor of more gun control........you eat up what the media spits out, and dont do the research..........

an UZI is not semi auto.........

The point is the lack of regulation in switzerland works, because everyone is armed to the teeth with whatever rifles they want........


again.....numbers.......dont.........lie..............
Look at their crime statistics...........

Originally posted by CJCrawley
At the risk of repeating myself (and boring even myself)...

You can't trust the general public with WMD.

wait wait..........

So you cant trust the public w guns, but you can trust the gov?

Im sorry........I dont subscribe to the fact that the gov of any country can say "You cant have guns because you arent responsible" to the public........

All the while they can be as corrupt as they want, and inact any laws that they want, abuse their countrymen, drop bombs on other countries, and start wars.........

SORRY I dont subscribe to your line of thinking

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


You make a valid point.

But I think the day when all governments lay down their weapons is some way off yet.

Right now, in my little country with a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 (about a quarter of your murder rate and a third of your murder rate by WMD)....I can walk to the shops or in the countryside and be reasonably confident of making it back home safely in one piece.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by CJCrawley
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

You make a valid point.

But I think the day when all governments lay down their weapons is some way off yet.

Right now, in my little country with a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 (about a quarter of your murder rate and a third of your murder rate by WMD)....I can walk to the shops or in the countryside and be reasonably confident of making it back home safely in one piece.

Have a nice day.

And in my country I can do the same thing...............to make it sound like we cant, is a bit disenginuous

And until the gov's decide to lay down their arms.......the American people wont either.. and neither should any other people of any other country...........

Oh, if only there were more gun control laws... Like maybe if there was a law against shooting people this would not have happened.

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


And until the gov's decide to lay down their arms.......the American people wont either.. and neither should any other people of any other country...........

What do you think's going to happen...your own gov will attack you?

It's not happened here.

To me, considering the number of victims and choice of weapon, that this was likely the outcome of some unresolved personal dispute rather than a completely random act. (Not that I condone it any.)

But just because somebody's miserable and acts out in an antisocial manner still isn't an excuse to ban some tool or another from those that can handle them in a responsible manner.

As for somebody's comments on average people having WMD's... You know we're just a few household chemicals away from one of the nastier chemical weapons of WWI? So in a way average people do have access. But I suppose too few people realise this, and those that do deem messing with that kind stuff in that way too dangerous anyways.

Originally posted by CJCrawley
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

And until the gov's decide to lay down their arms.......the American people wont either.. and neither should any other people of any other country...........

What do you think's going to happen...your own gov will attack you?

It's not happened here.

Really?

Try this:
Ruby Ridge
Siege at Waco

Federal agents were killed in both instances, Federal agents killed unarmed civilians in both cases... but were not held responsible for the murders they committed.

reply to post by butcherguy


Your police would not be armed if the civilians weren't armed.

Originally posted by Telos

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Telos

 

I wouldn't call this a "massive" shooting. I'm sure there was a worse shooting than this in Chicago last night... the gun control capital of America.

The thread has nothing to do with America. The world doesn't revolve around United States.

Yes it does. The dollar is the world reserve currency (for now), and there is a McDonald's in almost every country. Anyway, It may not have anything to do with America, but my point still remains.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
I was actually in this area a few years back and I remember the gun shops, tons of Uzis and shotguns etc. The fact that this guy was using a vintage rifle shows that gun control does work, if this was anything like the States, then it could well have been a more effective type of weapon with potentially more casualties.

edit on 3-1-2013 by Zcustosmorum because: (no reason given)

Seriously? You mention how the gun shops are full of Uzis etc showing Switzerland has little gun control and then claim because the article says he used a vintage rifle somehow gun control works? Please connect the dots for us but first clear up a few things will you?

Most vintage military rifles are semi automatic and hold at least 10 rounds back to WWI but semi autos were around even then and were invented as far back as the 19th century. They were just not as prevalent and we do not know what type of rifle it was whether it was a semi auto or not.

Second if he could have bought an Uzi in a gun shop how is it gun control works?

Thirdly if places like NY LA and Chicago have some of the strictest gun control on the planet yet some of the highest crime rates proving gun control does not work how can one claim it does?

Fourth and last but not least in America deaths caused by people using guns only account for 1.5 percent the million of deaths and I am sure Switzerland's percentage is probably lower for their country which means there are hundreds of things far more dangerous then guns to be worried about like car accidents and doctors for instance that are in the top few for causing death... You are hundreds of times more likely to die at the hands of a doctor or in a car accident then by someone using a gun!

So if you will clear those discrepancies up for us maybe then you can explain how his using a vintage rifle shows gun control works since 3 people are still dead and their families grieving and 2 seriously wounded?

edit on 3-1-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

The only discrepancy is because you have no idea what semi auto is...........like most people in favor of more gun control........you eat up what the media spits out, and dont do the research..........

an UZI is not semi auto.........

The point is the lack of regulation in switzerland works, because everyone is armed to the teeth with whatever rifles they want........


again.....numbers.......dont.........lie..............
Look at their crime statistics...........

I think you need to reread my post a little more carefully I am on your side...

Link (in German)

The guy was in psychiatric treatment in 2005, at this time the firearms he possesed were confiscated and destroyed.
He wouldn't have gotten a permit to buy new guns due to his mental condition, so it has to be checked, where he got those guns. He almost certainly didn't possess those guns legally or they would have been registered.

A foreseeable consequence of this tragedy is a nationally standarized weapons registry (currently, the registry is only done on cantonal level). If this would have averted this tragedy is questionable though.

A real pity... in a free and civilized society, people should be able to possess firearms without everybody having to fear a killing spree. People should behave responsibly with the rights and freedoms they have, or they will lose them.

Time for a Swiss point of view maybe?

The reasons for this tragedy are several. For one, the shooter had mental health issues as well as drug and alcohol problems. Second, he probably did not legally obtain these weapons and in 2005 the police took weapons away he previously had owned because he was committed to a mental hospital. Third, the shooting may have happened because of some sort of fight between him and another man, probably his uncle.
Also, this news story (German, sorry) says that the people in the village had known the shooter to having had mental health issues and also that he owned guns. So what about the responsibility of the community? Are we all just looking away?

One of the guns he used was an old army rifle of the style which probably my grandfather used to train with. Not some fancy fully automatic assault rifle used in modern combat but bolt action or at most semi-automatic. You get the same firepower when buying a hunting rifle.

Some of you have argued that this is not a massive shooting?! Well, it is! Three people are dead and two wounded. That are five victims to many. Also, Switzerland is a wee bit smaller than the United States. I can travel across the whole country, go sightseeing and get back home on the same day. This makes this tragedy appear to be closer to everybody here.

What about gun control? What is wrong with that? I depend on every other person on the road to behave responsibly with their car or truck for which they had to obtain a license to drive it. Why give guns just to everybody? When I was regularly discharged from the army last year, I had the opportunity to keep my assault rifle (wiki link). To do that, I first had to obtain proof that I had committed no crimes by getting a current version of my criminal record (empty, if you need to know ) and then get a weapon buying permit. The permit was valid for this weapon only! Any other weapon I might want to buy in the future, I will have to go through the same process again. I actually considered buying a 9mm handgun later this year using the same permit (you can enter a number of guns you want to buy) and the guy from the police actually called me and said that first time buyers are restricted to one gun only and that I had to choose. So I am now, with gun control laws at work, in possession of a semi-automatic (mandatory conversion) assault rifle.
I am not talking about taking guns away or just selling small caliber weapons to the public but don't you guys want to be a bit safer by knowing that at least some guys are checked before buying guns? I am not talking about criminals here. They will have guns no matter what restrictions the laws might bring.

Believe it or not, this topic also has something to do with health insurance. When I suffered from depression last year, I did not have to think about how to pay the doctor or the medication so going to the doctor to get help was a very small step (well, financially speaking...). Same for other mental health issues that other people might suffer from. So, mandatory health insurance for you Americans might actually help prevent some further massacres by removing obstacles for people in need of psychiatric treatment. Think about it! (Please!)

What about the second amendment? The militia mentioned therein? Why not change your army to a militia army and have the arms at home? Works for my country... Also, maybe your government just might think twice before sending troops to fight a war? (Just maybe...)

Cheers!

RationalTeddy
(One free teddy hug for reading the whole post)

reply to post by shivaX


Thats exactly the kind of ignorant response they want to induce with attrocities like this.

Are we really that dumbed down and vulnerable that we can be played like idiots to argue FOR the elite?


(on stupid fone keyboard)

Originally posted by CJCrawley
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Your police would not be armed if the civilians weren't armed.

Wishful thinking.

Look at some photos of Jews exiting the trains when they arrived at the concentration camps. The guards were well armed. The Jews, on the other hand, were disarmed(by law).

Think about it. The police already have weapons in their arsenals that civilians either can not own, or have to jump through hoops to be allowed to own. A lot of laws are on the books that prevent people from owning the same things that law enforcement carry or use on a regular basis. In addition to weapons, there are military grade tear gases and body armor.

What makes you so sure that the people that would be in charge of disarming society and keeping them disarmed would themselves be disarmed?

Originally posted by CJCrawley
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

And until the gov's decide to lay down their arms.......the American people wont either.. and neither should any other people of any other country...........

What do you think's going to happen...your own gov will attack you?

It's not happened here.

I'm sorry, but really? You join ATS and then make it sound like MBTM is nutty for thinking governments the world over don't have our best interests at heart!?! Not having a dig at you, but I find that a very strange find on a site like this!

reply to post by butcherguy

in case those are too recent for the reader ... they should review these ...
Wounded Knee
Kent State
Hurricane Katrina victims
suspects Not convicted criminals shot from helicopter

yeah, i suppose we're just imagining it, right ?

Originally posted by CJCrawley
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Your police would not be armed if the civilians weren't armed.

our civilians have been armed LOOOOONG before the Police ever existed.
so, if seniority rules, then they'd (LEOs) better be giving them up freely ... we've had enough of their inability to operate them safely

(if i could post a video, i would cause there is a perfect one that emphasizes my point ... it shows a LEO mishandling his firearm in front of school children ... classic)