zlacker

Can pro-gun people please stop using Switzerland as their go to argument? Do you know why they have so many guns? Because people who have done military service are required to keep a rifle locked up in their house. These are trained people who have gone through psychology tests and military training. That is very very fucking different than the situation in the US.

>>purple+(OP)
Because as we all know, psychology tests and military training are foolproof for sifting out the crazies.

>>purple+(OP)
I wouldn't qualify myself as 'pro-gun', rather the opposite.

Switzerland is interesting in many ways, one of which is the degree to which the government is very close to a true democracy, the fact that they don't waste a ton of money on their defence (which has a lot to do with them being in a geographically special position) and in the way that they have guns but abuse is low.

The fact that this is very different to the situation in the US might hold some clues to what could be done about this.

>>purple+(OP)
Reread what he wrote, I don't think he was using Switzerland as a progun argument.

>>purple+(OP)
I'm Canadian, so my insight into the US' situation is limited, but the reason pro-gun people keep bringing up Switzerland is that it puts the lie to the idea that more guns, or even "scary" guns like assault rifles, leads to more crime. Switzerland has huge gun ownership by responsible, trained adults. In addition, it has incredibly low poverty, excellent social services, very low crime rates, and a very high GDP/capita. The argument among pro-gun liberals like myself is that it is the latter factors which affect gun crime far more than the mere prevalence of guns.

>>pdeuch+k
I don't think anyone expects a foolproof solution. If we could come up with a solution where a few less crazy people had guns I'd be happier. Some training or licensing of guns ought to be discussed

>>pdeuch+k
Screen doors don't keep all the bugs out, but they sure do help. The alternative, a solid door, is a political impossibility in America. You may as well wish for a pink pony.

>>pdeuch+k
Nothing is completely fool proof for anything. We're talking probabilities and it makes very much sense to try to decrease the probability of shootings.

>>redthr+S
Obviously the pure number of guns have little correlation to the amount of gun violence in a country. The big difference here is that there's serious training involved (probably 15 months), psychology tests, and requirement for locking the weapon up. This is very different from random guy Joe Smith getting a gun and keeping it in his house for "protection". However, gun control needs to go together with better mental health institution, higher income equality etc.

But when it comes down to it, if a crazy person can easily get a hold of a gun, then there will be more shootings. There are two requirements for shooting sprees, 1. Crazy person, 2. Easy access of guns. Try to limit both.