It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


America needs more guns to prevent shootings. Lets learn from Switzerland.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 05:10 PM
Hi. This is my first post. All anti gunners are not going after the appropriate people on this issue.

Antigunners love to bring up stats regarding gun deaths, using them as a call to disarm law abiding americans. There is one very important thing to remember which is always left out-- government has been statistically proven by scientists to be responsible for the most human deaths in the 20th century-- most of which were done with guns.

You see my misguided friends, if you want to approach the disarmament of people responsible for violence and want to use real stats, we can accomodate you. The truth is, government should be disarmed first and foremost, effective immediately if your goal is to prevent bloodshed, not the american citizenry. Failure to focus on govt by you antigunners simply means you are frauds.

To all antigunners-- I would like to educate you about democide, AKA, "death by government." Source-- university of hawaii study on democide.

Humanity's past is littered with governments and political machines which turned on their own people with a ferocity few can fathom.  Perhaps you think it can't happen here. Please understand that the founders of this country thought otherwise and created our constitution with precisely this scenario in mind. Not only did they think it was possible, but to them, with history as a yardstick, it was INEVITABLE.

 Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin-- all were leaders of governments that took great pleasure in the genocide and torture of their own people by the millions.  There is a term for this-- it is called Democide.  

 Scholars estimate that in the last one hundred years alone, governments across the world, through their direct and INTENTIONAL actions, have slaughtered 250-300 million people.  This makes government statistically the greatest unnatural killer of people for the twentieth century.  Again, this is Democide--INTENTIONAL MURDER of, AKA DEATH BY GOVERNMENT.  Also consider that this statistic does NOT include deaths in battles or wars.

 Research democide and review these startling truths for yourself.  The 21st century has barely started, but already governments have claimed the lives of many.

Now to all anti gunners, you have a choice: stop using stats regarding gun deaths or use them but go after the appropriate target-- government, and not the american people. Again, failure to do so means either you are not capable of basic analytical thought proceses or that you are frauds.

Democide stats show how important it is for the citizenry to be able to defend themselves with guns while at the same time showing that it is govt that should be disarmed immediately.

Stats from university of hawaii, a leading authority on democide. Rhetorical points are my own.

What you antigunners are doing is asking law abiding americans (they are the only ones who follow laws) to make govt/police the only ones able to be armed... GOVT ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOST UNNATURAL BLOODSHED ON PLANET EARTH... and are totally corrupt. They are rotten to the core.

Leaving guns only in their hands is a proposition only an insane individual could get behind, especially when using history as a yardstick.

edit on 7-10-2015 by KonkyDong because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2015 by KonkyDong because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2015 by KonkyDong because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2015 by KonkyDong because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2015 by KonkyDong because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2015 by KonkyDong because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 06:09 PM
Just think how much worse this situation would have been If the young man was not carrying a hand gun.Im sure we would see alot more crimes like this in a gun free setting.
The report news link basically says 3 bad guys try to scam/rob/mug/hurt 2 good guys.good guys have gun shoot 2 of the 3 bad guys,3 bad guys go to jail.

edit on 7-10-2015 by deadcatsrule because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 07:03 PM
a reply to: frostie

A point that is often over looked is the fact that a lot of these mass shootings are performed by people on antidepressants, so maybe we should look at banning or restricting the use of antidepressants.

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 05:26 PM
a reply to: asmall89

According to my cousin you have the option of buying your firearm at the end of required service, but you have to apply for a permit and provide a valid reason for wanting to keep the gun.

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 06:51 PM

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: frostie

So Gun control shouldn't even be on the table.

Indeed it should be.

It's at least an attempt at trying to prevent these fruit cakes getting their hands on lethal weapons.

How exactly do you intend to stop them from getting a gun? Because you know they will get it illegally if they must. Laws and regulations make ZERO difference to someone who has already made up their minds to kill.

Funny thing, people who commit these murders give ZERO ****s about obeying a law.

It's insane to think that by stopping lawful gun owners from buying guns, would stop criminals from getting them. It's insane to think that confiscating the guns of lawful owners will get criminals to turn theirs in. So again, I ask you, how exactly would you stop them?

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:37 PM
Yeah sure if we tried to have guns laws as strict as the Swiss people here would go nuts. Soldiers have weapons at home but no ammo. No carrying of weapons in public without lots a paper work showing you have a need and you can forget it being loaded. Strict background checks on buying guns. You have to provide documentation that you are lionesses gun owner in good standing to buy ammo. Everything is registered and tracked. People would be screaming Nazi Germany in the US if you tried the Swiss method. And they a nowhere near the bottom of gun crimes. Just the opposite in fact among Europe.

So here are the real facts. Gun bans end most gun violence. Since almost all guns used in crimes are guns taken from legal owners, it mean guns become very hard to get. This is not a matter of debate, it is fact that easily be seen by looking nations with strict gun laws. So lets us end that silly debate.

Also lets end the stupid idea that an armed population stands a chance again a modern military that was truly tyrannical. A untrained mob with a hodge podge of guns that make supply and logistics impossible means the first thing you would have to do is toss aside your old weapons and get a common weapon so that training a logistics can be stream lined. In the modern world the only revolts that have a chance have to be supplied and supported by an outside power. Something our own revolution showed us thanks to the French and Spanish whom without we would all be drinking tea and watching the BBC. So let us end that silly debate.

Bringing up those points only makes gun supporters look like idiots. They have no bearing on the debate. The US has the Second Amendment so the idea of banning guns is simply not an option. So what can the US do? Better mental healthcare would help in some cases but, nobody is going to pay for that. And it will not stop all the kids killing each other, accidental shootings or domestic killings. Strict gun laws like the Swiss would help but, the NRA would never allow that. Holding gun owners responsible for the weapons that they fail to secure and are then used in crimes could help but, again the NRA would not allow that.

So what can we do? The answer sadly is nothing. If we want our guns with almost no regulations then we simply have to be willing accept the blood that comes with it. And no, adding guns to the situation has never worked. I have been to countries where everybody is armed and they are the most violent places you can imagine.

I am a gun owner. I have no intention of giving up that right. Do I think their should be more regulation and gun owners held accountable, sure. Do I think that is going to happen? Not a chance. So the blood will continue to flow.

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:54 PM
First of all, your first statement is not even true ("only outlaws will have guns"). Can you not imagine a world where...umm, only a designated group of people, say, the police, have guns, and therefore maintain law and order?

There is a point where what you think borders on the paranoid, and the thought that says "police can't be trusted", is wrong, because it cynical: and to be cynical without any evidence is DUMB.

Human beings are psychologically structured by their relations with others. And our relationships with others, beginning as they when we are babies, is all about affects - or feelings - what we later on call 'emotions'. People act as they do not for any genetic or determinative reason (and this is the modern day contemporary view of human nature, based on recent knowledge of epigenetic regulation of genes, which in turn is regulated by environmental factors like the quality of an emotional relationship with another) but because they feel threatened. The problem, then, is psychological - and NOT material.

This is a PTSD mentally on the largest scale. Who cares if Switzerland can do it? Switzerland is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CULTURE. Does it still not occur to you that...ummm, psychology has something to do with it? The Swiss AFTER ALL have not had a war for a long, long time, and so our biased psychologically in their relations i.e the culture they've developed, to sustain a very disciplined relationship with relationship to social relationships.

And also add in the nature of Swiss democracy, which, I hope you know, has some major differences from America.

You solve gun violence by ENDING THE PARANOIA about others. Beneath all the passion felt for this issue is a fear, and thus a cognitive bias that prioritizes defensive activities i.e guns, as being a necessity.

What this idea lacks, and what the not fetishized founders of America didn't know, is that human nature emerges out of a brain that interacts with an environment: this can be controlled for. We can, in fact, live in a kinder world, and thus do without weapons that can potentially be used to kill people.

The republican ideology is laden with hypocrisy and irony. Protect Guns? Promote Freedom of ideas? Individualism? And what do you get? An idiotic feedback loop, whereby the narcissism of corporations, and the marketing they they create, builds into minds insecurities about self, all for the purpose of creating need, what the marketers want to sell.

The system like dynamics of culture will then create losers - people biased by their socioeconomic, cultural, or personal experiences (relational environment) - who are made insane enough to buy those guns which conservatives just love, and use those guns against the same people who think the only way to live is to profit from peoples insecurities.

The core of this ideology is defective, wrong-headed, greedy, dissociative, and repetitive. Believe in something that causes harm, and which then necessitates guns as a way to protect ourselves from others, will only make a worse world, with more mental suffering for those people who do not get the support they need to live healthily.

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:06 PM
I keep saying this, guns are not the issue, mental & emotional health and environment is the issue.
Switzerland doesn't have thousands of people with PTSD from foreign wars, they have a better economy and no class wars like America. Overall it is a better environment for stability.

Canadians have plenty of guns, and they have less gun violence, oh there are spurts of it, but nothing like America.
Of the thousands of hunters in Canada with rifles you just don't hear of them going mental and shooting up a school.
There was one indecent that I can recall in the last 30 years, but it was in Quebec.

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:42 PM
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

And yet we can't get universal health care passed here. From the same people that say that it is mental health that is the problem. Don't want to pay for the fix, just want to complain about it.

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 10:14 PM
a reply to: frostie

This is totally correct! I once worked with a man from Switzerland, who discussed this very issue. No crazy "gun control", and nothing like what we see in crime. They are doing it right.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 11:45 AM
Lurking Swiss citizen here

Have not read the whole thread, jist title, thought i'd chime in.

The opening post is, sorry, plain stupid. Yes, we might have a lot of guns. Yes, us men need to go to military.

the no-violence argument "cus we all got guns" is wrong. Truth is, you'll find virtually NOBODY who carries a gun around. Nobody, nowhere. Even if someone has a gun, hes got no ammunition. Its stored in a central stock in every other village. Virtually noone carries a gun here.

We have NO gun culture. Thats why gun violence is small here.

And to be frank, almost every sane swiss person will say that US gun laws and gun culture is simply idiotic. Pro gun people are considered nutjobs here. Any person who would walk with a gun, save hes police or military, would be considered a nutjob.

This regardless of left/right/liberal or conservative swiss political viewpoint.

We have no gun culture in switzerland, and we dont want to have one.
edit on 9-10-2015 by animalfarm because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:35 PM
The main problem is all the mass shooters were being treated for depression or some other emotional problem and something/someone changed the formula causing them to become psychotic(some of them become suicidal instead and end up killing themselves). Until their meds change they are relatively happy normal people this is why many of the people who knew them don't believe they would do something so heinous. No amount of legislation/regulation will weed them out or stop them from killing. If you make the penalty for using a gun during the commission of a crime nearly all the criminals will stop using them.

All you need after that is to capture a list of every person being treated with mind altering drugs, see that they have no access to guns and that will stop the mass shootings. Then all you need to do is remove ALL the psychotic people working in police departments, fbi, nsa, cia and all of the other special government branches and you will have created Nirvana without busting the nuts of 400 million citizens.

posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:59 PM
a reply to: alldaylong

Have you ever heard of tor? The onion router. You can order anything (including automatic weapons and ammo), pay in bit coin, and have it discreetly shipped to your door. No background check.......
Do you feel safer now?

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 03:31 AM
Guns in Switzerland are very well regulated as has been stated. There are very rare exceptions, but for the most part ammunition is not kept in the home. Because the Swiss have common sense and understand that it is dangerous to have the ability to kill. They are not paranoid or force fed the American cultural media soaked diet of fear and hate that instills us with our unique inability to empathize and our all American might makes right ethos.
No, we don't need any more guns, thank you. We already have increased the amount of guns in american homes and on the streets by 300,000,000 just since the middle of the twentieth century. In 1945 there were 0.32 guns per capita and today Americans own an average of 1.2 guns. That's a 200% per capita increase. In other words, we could get rid of 60,000,000 firearms in this country and still have one for every man woman and child. If you think of each gun along side the very well established statistic that owning a gun increases the likelihood of the gun owner's death by suicide by about 500% and also increases the gun owner's likelihood of death by homicide by 300%, getting rid of a few guns might not be such a terrible idea. Obviously correlation is not causation, but there are times when not having access to a weapon does in fact prevent a human from using a weapon. And the vast majority of gun use against people in the US has nothing to do with self protection. They are used to murder, usually friends and family members.
Did any of you read the bull# article about how unsafe the Australian people have been made by the semiautomatic weapon buy back program 20 years ago? It was published in the gun industry's lobbyist propaganda rag "America's 1st Freedom?" It is causing quite a bit of controversy.

Gun related deaths have dropped by an average of 7.5% every year in Australia since the Australian government bought back 1 million semiautomatic weapons. There has not been a mass shooting in the almost 20 years since the buyback initiative took place. In that same time period there have been at least 53 mass shootings in the United States. That's zero in the Australia in twenty years and at least 53 in the US in the same time period. And in those 20 years, Americans have pretty much locked into a constant rate of having a 3 in 100,000 chance of being killed by a firearm. Americans are roughly 300% more likely to be killed by guns than are Australians. If we factor in other non firearm weapons, Americans are 500% more likely to be murdered than our poor defenseless Australian friends.
The NRA sums up all this data succinctly in this article by saying the buyback of semi automatic weapons in Australia: "robbed Australians of their right to self-defense and empowered criminals, all without delivering the promised reduction in violent crime."
Makes me want to #ing puke.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 04:14 AM
I suspect the fact that the Swiss have to keep their rifles and ammunition in locked, routinely inspected boxes and have to account for their ammo might have something to do with it.

It's a slightly different prospect to picking up a can of rounds at the supermarket for the handgun rattling around in your glove compartment.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 04:19 AM

originally posted by: enament
a reply to: frostie

A point that is often over looked is the fact that a lot of these mass shootings are performed by people on antidepressants, so maybe we should look at banning or restricting the use of antidepressants.

Anti-depressants identical to those in America are prescribed at comparable rates in every developed country - including those with high or relatively high levels of gun ownership.

It might be part of it, but there is no statistical logic at all in suggesting American gun violence is disproportionately affected by anti-depressant medications.

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:01 AM
I'm all for gun CONTROL, but not a gun BAN.

It should be more difficult for psychopaths to obtain firearms. One should be required to undergo mental screening and training before obtaining a deadly weapon. That's just common sense.

But a total gun ban? One need not look any further than Australia to see how that plays out...

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 11:42 AM
a reply to: Gh0stwalker

Posting a video from the immediate aftermath of a gun ban is evidence of nothing. Why don't you investigate what has happened in the last 15 (say) years?

Edit: I agree that it should be harder to buy a gun though. There's a fair few people in society that should be banned, I'm afraid.
edit on 10-10-2015 by KingIcarus because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 12:09 PM
More guns(for self defense)doesn't necessarily mean less shootings.

To really get down to the nitty-gritty, we need less CRAZIES and more men and women with testicular fortitude. We need to educate potential firearm buyers/sellers/carriers. We need lots of things, but more guns is not the answer. My case in point is early as 2009 it was estimated that there were more firearms in circulation within the United States boundaries than there are PEOPLE. Based on a Congressional Research Service report, there were an estimated 310 million civilian firearms within the United States in November of 2009, at which time, the population was an estimated 305 million. Not to mention, the number of civilian firearms is only an estimation collected from ATF manufacturing and import/export data, meaning it doesn't include any ILLEGAL firearms.

Even if a portion of the gun stock in America is lost or destroyed and these numbers aren't as accurate as they thing IS certain...the manufacture of firearms in America has already increased from 5.6 million in 2009 to a whopping 10.9 million guns in 2013.

Given your hypothesis that more guns will cause a lower amount of crime....and the fact that we are ALREADY increasing our production with zero net results...I fail to see the connection.

More guns DOES NOT mean less crime.


Congressional Research Service report
Firearms Commerce - ATF

posted on Oct, 10 2015 @ 03:43 PM
a reply to: MrSpad

I didnt bother to read the rest of your post because you ignored the OP which I have posted again for your convenience.

You stated:

No carrying of weapons in public without lots a paper work showing you have a need and you can forget it being loaded

This is from TIME

Even though Switzerland has not been involved in an armed conflict since a standoff between Catholics and Protestants in 1847, the Swiss are very serious not only about their right to own weapons but also to carry them around in public. Because of this general acceptance and even pride in gun ownership, nobody bats an eye at the sight of a civilian riding a bus, bike or motorcycle to the shooting range, with a rifle slung across the shoulder.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in