Gun Facts – Your Guide to Debunking Gun Control Myths

[all]

[quote=ucodegen][quote captcha]Upon completing the training the militiaman has the option to keep the weapon (modified to semi-automatic).[/quote]
I didn’t see anything referencing that it was modified to semi-auto. In fact, I saw things mentioning that they can own it, but not fire the full-auto’s except at specific ranges. You can even own a howitzer in Switzerland, though my understanding is that an easy to get gun permit is required.
[/quote]
From CONCHO’s link:
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In this case of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner. The rifle is then a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.

[quote=ucodegen][quote captcha]If you want to buy another gun you need a permit.[/quote]Wrong. If you buy more than a specific number per year, permit required.. also based upon type of weapon. Permit is easy except for Geneva and one other canton(not going to look that up at this moment).
[/quote]
The article has a section too long to include here. According to 1999 rules ‘To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms.’
New stricter rules were put in place few years ago.

[quote=ucodegen][quote captcha]If you want to carry your gun you need another permit. [/quote]Wrong. No permit required to carry. In fact it is assumed you will be carrying concealed unless you are law enforcement or a money carrier.
[/quote]
Same source:
To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.
And to get the permit you need the carrying permit, explain the need for it and pass a test.

[quote=ucodegen][quote captcha]If you are an ‘auslander’ good luck getting any of that. [/quote]Wrong again.. I also think someone else addressed this.
[/quote]
Wrong ‘wrong again’ again.

Edit: My experience is that acquisition, carrying and usage are regulated and controlled. In addition, profiling is way of life. That might not be your experience, but your country of origin is not on the list mentioned by CONCHO.

[Eugene]

[quote]True, but considering the previous case(United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr), I am wondering if the attorney was aware of Haynes vs U.S. If the source of the funds is required to be documented, it may provide a shield[/quote]

Which attorney? US v. Sullivan is dated 1927, Shapiro v. US is dated 1948.

[quote]Interesting statement considering that Switzerland has the most liberal gun control laws virtually anywhere, has one of the lowest crime rates and gun assault/murder rates and is a country that several nations considered attacking but then abandoned that idea. Also consider Washington DC, which had banned handguns except for police, yet their gun assault/murder rate was amongst the highest in the nation. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates as well, getting a gun permit in Mexico is also tricky. [/quote]

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This includes crimes which can’t be plausibly deterred by gun ownership (and particularly by machine gun and assault rifle ownership). In 2009, there were 8.5 registered rapes per 100,000 residents. In the U.S. in the same year, there were 27 rapes per 100,000. I’m sure that if we go through other crimes such as burglaries and car thefts (which, presumably, occur when the owner of the property being stolen isn’t present, and gun ownership can’t be a strong deterrent either), we’ll see the same thing.

Comparing gun control laws of Switzerland and D.C. or Mexico and making ANY conclusions about their effectiveness is one of the worst kinds of fallacies one can reach in this subject.

Here’s one reason why. People often mistakenly assume that most homicides involve a career criminal, e.g. a robber, shooting an innocent unfamiliar victim. It is argued that gun ownership is a deterrent to such crimes.

But, in reality, the most common kind of homicide in this country is an argument between two acquaintances, possibly (but not necessarily) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which escalates into a fight. The second most common kind is a juvenile gang killing. (The third most common kind involves a man killing his wife or gilfriend.) I fail to see which one of these categories would be deterred by gun ownership.

[Eugene]

[quote]True, but considering the previous case(United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr), I am wondering if the attorney was aware of Haynes vs U.S. If the source of the funds is required to be documented, it may provide a shield[/quote]

Which attorney? US v. Sullivan is dated 1927, Shapiro v. US is dated 1948.

[quote]Interesting statement considering that Switzerland has the most liberal gun control laws virtually anywhere, has one of the lowest crime rates and gun assault/murder rates and is a country that several nations considered attacking but then abandoned that idea. Also consider Washington DC, which had banned handguns except for police, yet their gun assault/murder rate was amongst the highest in the nation. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates as well, getting a gun permit in Mexico is also tricky. [/quote]

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This includes crimes which can’t be plausibly deterred by gun ownership (and particularly by machine gun and assault rifle ownership). In 2009, there were 8.5 registered rapes per 100,000 residents. In the U.S. in the same year, there were 27 rapes per 100,000. I’m sure that if we go through other crimes such as burglaries and car thefts (which, presumably, occur when the owner of the property being stolen isn’t present, and gun ownership can’t be a strong deterrent either), we’ll see the same thing.

Comparing gun control laws of Switzerland and D.C. or Mexico and making ANY conclusions about their effectiveness is one of the worst kinds of fallacies one can reach in this subject.

Here’s one reason why. People often mistakenly assume that most homicides involve a career criminal, e.g. a robber, shooting an innocent unfamiliar victim. It is argued that gun ownership is a deterrent to such crimes.

But, in reality, the most common kind of homicide in this country is an argument between two acquaintances, possibly (but not necessarily) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which escalates into a fight. The second most common kind is a juvenile gang killing. (The third most common kind involves a man killing his wife or gilfriend.) I fail to see which one of these categories would be deterred by gun ownership.

[Eugene]

[quote]True, but considering the previous case(United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr), I am wondering if the attorney was aware of Haynes vs U.S. If the source of the funds is required to be documented, it may provide a shield[/quote]

Which attorney? US v. Sullivan is dated 1927, Shapiro v. US is dated 1948.

[quote]Interesting statement considering that Switzerland has the most liberal gun control laws virtually anywhere, has one of the lowest crime rates and gun assault/murder rates and is a country that several nations considered attacking but then abandoned that idea. Also consider Washington DC, which had banned handguns except for police, yet their gun assault/murder rate was amongst the highest in the nation. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates as well, getting a gun permit in Mexico is also tricky. [/quote]

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This includes crimes which can’t be plausibly deterred by gun ownership (and particularly by machine gun and assault rifle ownership). In 2009, there were 8.5 registered rapes per 100,000 residents. In the U.S. in the same year, there were 27 rapes per 100,000. I’m sure that if we go through other crimes such as burglaries and car thefts (which, presumably, occur when the owner of the property being stolen isn’t present, and gun ownership can’t be a strong deterrent either), we’ll see the same thing.

Comparing gun control laws of Switzerland and D.C. or Mexico and making ANY conclusions about their effectiveness is one of the worst kinds of fallacies one can reach in this subject.

Here’s one reason why. People often mistakenly assume that most homicides involve a career criminal, e.g. a robber, shooting an innocent unfamiliar victim. It is argued that gun ownership is a deterrent to such crimes.

But, in reality, the most common kind of homicide in this country is an argument between two acquaintances, possibly (but not necessarily) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which escalates into a fight. The second most common kind is a juvenile gang killing. (The third most common kind involves a man killing his wife or gilfriend.) I fail to see which one of these categories would be deterred by gun ownership.

[Eugene]

[quote]True, but considering the previous case(United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr), I am wondering if the attorney was aware of Haynes vs U.S. If the source of the funds is required to be documented, it may provide a shield[/quote]

Which attorney? US v. Sullivan is dated 1927, Shapiro v. US is dated 1948.

[quote]Interesting statement considering that Switzerland has the most liberal gun control laws virtually anywhere, has one of the lowest crime rates and gun assault/murder rates and is a country that several nations considered attacking but then abandoned that idea. Also consider Washington DC, which had banned handguns except for police, yet their gun assault/murder rate was amongst the highest in the nation. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates as well, getting a gun permit in Mexico is also tricky. [/quote]

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This includes crimes which can’t be plausibly deterred by gun ownership (and particularly by machine gun and assault rifle ownership). In 2009, there were 8.5 registered rapes per 100,000 residents. In the U.S. in the same year, there were 27 rapes per 100,000. I’m sure that if we go through other crimes such as burglaries and car thefts (which, presumably, occur when the owner of the property being stolen isn’t present, and gun ownership can’t be a strong deterrent either), we’ll see the same thing.

Comparing gun control laws of Switzerland and D.C. or Mexico and making ANY conclusions about their effectiveness is one of the worst kinds of fallacies one can reach in this subject.

Here’s one reason why. People often mistakenly assume that most homicides involve a career criminal, e.g. a robber, shooting an innocent unfamiliar victim. It is argued that gun ownership is a deterrent to such crimes.

But, in reality, the most common kind of homicide in this country is an argument between two acquaintances, possibly (but not necessarily) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which escalates into a fight. The second most common kind is a juvenile gang killing. (The third most common kind involves a man killing his wife or gilfriend.) I fail to see which one of these categories would be deterred by gun ownership.

[Eugene]

[quote]True, but considering the previous case(United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr), I am wondering if the attorney was aware of Haynes vs U.S. If the source of the funds is required to be documented, it may provide a shield[/quote]

Which attorney? US v. Sullivan is dated 1927, Shapiro v. US is dated 1948.

[quote]Interesting statement considering that Switzerland has the most liberal gun control laws virtually anywhere, has one of the lowest crime rates and gun assault/murder rates and is a country that several nations considered attacking but then abandoned that idea. Also consider Washington DC, which had banned handguns except for police, yet their gun assault/murder rate was amongst the highest in the nation. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates as well, getting a gun permit in Mexico is also tricky. [/quote]

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. This includes crimes which can’t be plausibly deterred by gun ownership (and particularly by machine gun and assault rifle ownership). In 2009, there were 8.5 registered rapes per 100,000 residents. In the U.S. in the same year, there were 27 rapes per 100,000. I’m sure that if we go through other crimes such as burglaries and car thefts (which, presumably, occur when the owner of the property being stolen isn’t present, and gun ownership can’t be a strong deterrent either), we’ll see the same thing.

Comparing gun control laws of Switzerland and D.C. or Mexico and making ANY conclusions about their effectiveness is one of the worst kinds of fallacies one can reach in this subject.

Here’s one reason why. People often mistakenly assume that most homicides involve a career criminal, e.g. a robber, shooting an innocent unfamiliar victim. It is argued that gun ownership is a deterrent to such crimes.

But, in reality, the most common kind of homicide in this country is an argument between two acquaintances, possibly (but not necessarily) under the influence of alcohol or drugs, which escalates into a fight. The second most common kind is a juvenile gang killing. (The third most common kind involves a man killing his wife or gilfriend.) I fail to see which one of these categories would be deterred by gun ownership.

[Anonymous]

The tragedies at Columbine, VA Tech, et al. would have had far fewer victims if other students had been packing.

Here’s how it works:

Whenever the armed, “good guy” students hear gunfire, they pull out their weapons, run out of their classrooms toward the sound of the gunfire. Then they shoot at the “bad guy” gunmen until the bad guys are all dead.

How do they know who the bad guys are?

It’s obvious – they are the ones with the guns!

[Anonymous]

The tragedies at Columbine, VA Tech, et al. would have had far fewer victims if other students had been packing.

Here’s how it works:

Whenever the armed, “good guy” students hear gunfire, they pull out their weapons, run out of their classrooms toward the sound of the gunfire. Then they shoot at the “bad guy” gunmen until the bad guys are all dead.

How do they know who the bad guys are?

It’s obvious – they are the ones with the guns!

[Anonymous]

The tragedies at Columbine, VA Tech, et al. would have had far fewer victims if other students had been packing.

Here’s how it works:

Whenever the armed, “good guy” students hear gunfire, they pull out their weapons, run out of their classrooms toward the sound of the gunfire. Then they shoot at the “bad guy” gunmen until the bad guys are all dead.

How do they know who the bad guys are?

It’s obvious – they are the ones with the guns!

[Anonymous]

The tragedies at Columbine, VA Tech, et al. would have had far fewer victims if other students had been packing.

Here’s how it works:

Whenever the armed, “good guy” students hear gunfire, they pull out their weapons, run out of their classrooms toward the sound of the gunfire. Then they shoot at the “bad guy” gunmen until the bad guys are all dead.

How do they know who the bad guys are?

It’s obvious – they are the ones with the guns!

[Anonymous]

The tragedies at Columbine, VA Tech, et al. would have had far fewer victims if other students had been packing.

Here’s how it works:

Whenever the armed, “good guy” students hear gunfire, they pull out their weapons, run out of their classrooms toward the sound of the gunfire. Then they shoot at the “bad guy” gunmen until the bad guys are all dead.

How do they know who the bad guys are?

It’s obvious – they are the ones with the guns!

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the “gun facts” site includes the facts about the publishers of the site and their political agenda.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the “gun facts” site includes the facts about the publishers of the site and their political agenda.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the “gun facts” site includes the facts about the publishers of the site and their political agenda.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the “gun facts” site includes the facts about the publishers of the site and their political agenda.

[Author]

Posts