The Terrible Tragedy in CT, and what do we do about it?

[Kevin1]

FulviaHF,
The answer to question 4 stands, as the question expressedly addressed the possession of firearms. I quote: "What laws affecting possession of firearms has Barrack Obama signed into law?" Regulating where it is legal to carry is an all together unrelated issue that has no bearing on the topic at hand, which unless I misread the original post, asked what can be done to prevent tragedies like the shooting in CT from happening again.

The fact is Obama has passed no laws restricting your right of possession. With that said, are you suggesting a lack of action so far guarantees the absense of any desire to do so? That, if I may say so, would be a pretty big leap of faith. One too great for me to comfortably integrate into my thinking.

We need to separate the signal from the noise, and the signals (supporting the Chicago ban, delegating a study commissionto Biden, supporting Feinstein's agenda, the current media frenzy driving public opinion...) point toward that desire, or at least a willingness, to restrict possession of certain firearms. The rest (handwringing, talking past each other, losing focus, pointing fingers...) is noise and should not drive the decision making process.

[markpink]

The 4 questions that were proposed are not applicable. It is the legislation that is going to be proposed next week. And Obama supports it.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)—author of the federal “assault weapon” and “large” ammunition magazine ban of 1994-2004—has announced that on the first day of the new Congress—January 3rd— she will introduce a bill to which her 1994 ban will pale by comparison. On Dec. 17th, Feinstein said, “I have been working with my staff for over a year on this legislation” and “It will be carefully focused.” Indicating the depth of her research on the issue, she said on Dec. 21st that she had personally looked at pictures of guns in 1993, and again in 2012.

According to a Dec. 27th posting on Sen. Feinstein’s website and a draft of the bill obtained by NRA-ILA, the new ban would, among other things, adopt new definitions of “assault weapon” that would affect a much larger variety of firearms, require current owners of such firearms to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act, and require forfeiture of the firearms upon the deaths of their current owners. Some of the changes in Feinstein’s new bill are as follows:

•Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.

•Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.

• Carries hyperbole further than the 1994 ban. Feinstein’s 1994 ban listed “grenade launcher” as one of the prohibiting features for rifles. Her 2013 bill carries goes even further into the ridiculous, by also listing “rocket launcher.” Such devices are restricted under the National Firearms Act and, obviously, are not standard components of the firearms Feinstein wants to ban. Perhaps a subsequent Feinstein bill will add “nuclear bomb,” “particle beam weapon,” or something else equally far-fetched to the features list.

•Expands the definition of “assault weapon” by including:

•Three very popular rifles: The M1 Carbine (introduced in 1944 and for many years sold by the federal government to individuals involved in marksmanship competition), a model of the Ruger Mini-14, and most or all models of the SKS.

•Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” except for tubular-magazine .22s.

•Any “semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches,” any “semiautomatic handgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and any semi-automatic handgun that has a threaded barrel.


•Requires owners of existing “assault weapons” to register them with the federal government under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The NFA imposes a $200 tax per firearm, and requires an owner to submit photographs and fingerprints to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), to inform the BATFE of the address where the firearm will be kept, and to obtain the BATFE’s permission to transport the firearm across state lines.

•Prohibits the transfer of “assault weapons.” Owners of other firearms, including those covered by the NFA, are permitted to sell them or pass them to heirs. However, under Feinstein’s new bill, “assault weapons” would remain with their current owners until their deaths, at which point they would be forfeited to the government.

•Prohibits the domestic manufacture and the importation of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The 1994 ban allowed the importation of such magazines that were manufactured before the ban took effect. Whereas the 1994 ban protected gun owners from errant prosecution by making the government prove when a magazine was made, the new ban includes no such protection. The new ban also requires firearm dealers to certify the date of manufacture of any >10-round magazine sold, a virtually impossible task, given that virtually no magazines are stamped with their date of manufacture.

•Targets handguns in defiance of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects the right to have handguns for self-defense, in large part on the basis of the fact handguns are the type of firearm “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Semi-automatic pistols, which are the most popular handguns today, are designed to use detachable magazines, and the magazines “overwhelmingly chosen” by Americans for self-defense are those that hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, Feinstein’s list of nearly 1,000 firearms exempted by name (see next paragraph) contains not a single handgun. Sen. Feinstein advocated banning handguns before being elected to the Senate, though she carried a handgun for her own personal protection.

Gun owners will be forced to be treated like criminals, fingerprinted and photographed by the police if they want to keep their guns that match the ban. And many many guns that were never even considered "Assault Weapons" will now be covered.

If this passes, it will lead to much violence and death. Because large sections of the country will NOT give up their guns.

[Gunsmith]

As Mark did a great job of pointing out what some of our elected officials goals are and the hypocrisy of it all, it should cause everyone on both sides to take notice. It is a shame that some are willing to create criminals out of thin air for a false sense of security. History has taught us that it never ends with just one right stripped away. If it happens buckle up we will be in for one scary ride. Even if you do not own a gun or hate civilian gun ownership all together this effort to infringe on the 2nd amendment should scare you to death! There is no disputing that criminals and the insane will still have guns and continue to kill in anyway they can. Yet the fools who demand the 2nd amendment be trampled on are willing to throw our country into anarchy for a false sense of security. I have said many times that the members of this forum are some of the smartest people you will find but are we that much more aware of reality than our elected officials? It would appear so. My point is no matter what side of the gun issue you are on or even on the fence when the government pushes too far and the shot heard round the world is heard again we will all be involved no matter what side we are on. I don't know anyone that wants to see this country in anarchy and everyone should make every effort to stop it from happening even if it means their neighbor may or may not own a gun they don't like or understand. It is important to understand the realities of everything and their unintended consequences.

[mdrburchette]

Wow, no wonder these guns are flying off the shelves.

[bobplyler]

* 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

[RRoller123]

This is the larger issue, Bob, as you so well show. We will not be disarmed voluntarily in the US. You also may add the re-armament of the British public at the start of WW2 by Americans, donating their personal weapons in a formal program to prepare them for Invasion by the Nazis. Not discussed in european circles too often, as it could be considered a little embarrasing.

Fulvio: I did not state that the solution to the problem is exclusively state and local or anything else. Not sure where you got that from. It is multi-faceted of course. My comment only reflects the error of thinking that increased federal funding levels of any organization will do anything at all to help the problem.

[markpink]

Besides...

I want to mount a 1919 machine gun on my fiat spider...

Would really help in high traffic situations.

mark

[Redline]

You also may add the re-armament of the British public at the start of WW2 by Americans, donating their personal weapons in a formal program to prepare them for Invasion by the Nazis. Not discussed in european circles too often, as it could be considered a little embarrasing.

Any source for this? As a Canadian, I have never heard of this. Britain had a massive rearmament program from 1934-1939, turning out tanks, Spitfires, Lancasters, battleships etc. I imagine they also managed to produce a few guns as well. I would be genuinely interested, from a historical perspective, to know the scope and manner of weapons flow from the US to Britain during this period. America adjusted their neutrality policy to allow cash-and-carry purchases to both sides of the looming dispute, but only of goods which could not be used for warfare.

[RRoller123]

Here is the text from the story I took this from. I also am a history buff so I took interest in this as well!

It is terribly long, but well worth reading for a historical reference.

8/23/2012
Though every Englishman should hear what this particular rifle has to say about the Olympics, England and individual rights, I didn’t set out to embarrass this particular English journalist. It’s just that he had it coming.
Let’s just call him Stephen Grey, as that’s his real name. He’s not a bad sort. Grey was educated at England’s famed St. Alban’s School and studied philosophy at Oxford. He has outsized ears and somehow seems too tall for his boyish face. These features give him a look of young innocence you soon find is matched by sincerity. Then you run into his intellect and really like him. He wrote his last book, Into the Viper’s Nest, after being imbedded with soldiers in Afghanistan. He saw firsthand what the Taliban did to women. He knows all about the barbaric things al-Qaeda has done to a few of his colleagues. He knows jihadists consider civilians to be fair game. He knows about much uglier things than these. Nevertheless, he doesn’t think people should have the right to have firearms for self-defense.
Grey was seated across a table from me at a small dinner party some months ago in Washington, D.C., saying things like, “Americans need to give up their guns. They must become responsible citizens of the world.” Meanwhile, the other writers around the table—people who know my background—were glancing at me, bracing for the counterattack.
I stayed quiet as he described his utopian vision of a disarmed world like John Lennon singing “Imagine no possessions … I wonder if you can … . ” I wanted him to be fully committed before I engaged.
Minutes later, as he paused to view the effect of his anti-gun offensive on a table full of Americans, I opted for an attack he likely hadn’t encountered before. I didn’t think he’d be swayed by crime statistics. And if I cited the dramatic English history of individual rights—and the loss thereof—he’d probably quote Friedrich Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil to contend there is no absolute right and wrong and therefore no real individual rights. That philosophical discussion, as interesting as it might be, would be a smokescreen for his retreat. What I needed was a way at the truth he hadn’t encountered before, so I drew him in with the true story of a particular Springfield Model 1903.
“Stephen,” I began, “I understand that a world without guns in private hands, and therefore a world where a 110-pound woman can no longer shoot down a 200-pound rapist, is appealing to you. But let me tell you about a very special rifle. Its story just might make you rethink your views.”
He eyed me over his whiskey and soda.
This particular rifle, I explained, is chambered in .30-’06 Sprg. It was built in 1905 or 1906 in Springfield, Mass. It’s a bolt-action Springfield Model of 1903 with the serial number 264631. Major John W. Hession (1877-1961), an American long-range competition shooter, purchased the rifle. He likely bought it in 1906. He topped it with a J. Stevens Co. riflescope and took it to the range. He found the rifle was so accurate that he took it to England to compete in the Olympics in 1908 at the Bisley Range. Then, in 1909, he used the rifle to set a world record at 800 yards at Camp Perry. At the time The Piqua Leader-Dispatch (a newspaper that went out of business in 1919) ran the headline “World’s Record is Broken By Hession” on its front page. The feat made him a star. So much so that the June 1911 issue of Forest and Stream reported that when Hession competed at the DuPont Gun Club they were “especially pleased to have Mr. Hession with them. He is regarded by critics as the foremost long-range rifle shot in the world. His most remarkable performance, and the one which brought him the most fame, was at Camp Perry during 1909. At this time he made 67 consecutive bullseyes at 800 yards, a record never before equaled nor since broken.”
Hession was a top long-range competitor well into the 1940s. He won the Wimbledon Cup in 1932. And that wasn’t his first victory there. The Chicago Daily News Almanac and Year-Book for 1921 lists Hession as the winner of the Wimbledon Cup in 1919 as well. In fact, a Remington ad in Arms & The Man in 1914 boasted that Hession used Remington ammunition to win the Marine Corps Cup Match in 1913.
His impact on competitive shooting earned him a parting tribute in the April 1962 issue of American Rifleman. His obituary ran just after one for Col. Townsend Whelen. It reported that “one of his major achievements was to set four world records in one day. This he did on July 3, 1925 while competing in the Eastern Small Bore Championships at Sea Grit, New Jersey. In accomplishing this he fired 102 shots all of which, including sighting shots, were bullseyes.”
Clearly Hession was a renowned rifleman. He also had an understandable attachment to this particular 1903 Springfield. Such a profound attachment, in fact, that he later did something even more remarkable with the rifle.
World War II Gun Drive
After World War I England passed gun-control laws that mostly disarmed its citizenry. The belief that there should be “a rifle in every cottage,” as proposed by England’s Prime Minister, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, in 1900 was finished. According to the 1689 Bill of Rights “subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” This changed with England’s Firearms Act of 1920. Its restrictions on the private ownership of firearms was partly sold to a war-weary public by politicians fanning fears that a surge in crime might occur because of the large number of firearms available following the war. Another justification for severely restricting firearm ownership was to fulfill a commitment to the 1919 Paris Arms Convention.
Whatever the rationale, the Firearms Act of 1920 passed and required an English citizen who wanted to own a firearm to first obtain a firearm certificate. The certificate, which was good for three years, specifically listed the firearm a person was approved to own and listed the amount of ammunition he or she could buy or possess. The police even had the power to exclude anyone who had “intemperate habits” or an “unsound mind.” Applicants for certificates also had to convince the police they had a good reason for needing a certificate. The 1920 law did not affect those who owned shotguns, but it gave government officials complete control over who could own handguns and rifles.
In 1933 the English Parliament next passed the Firearms and Imitation Firearms Bill. It increased the punishment for the use of a gun in the commission of a crime. Possession of a real or imitation firearm was also made an offence unless the person could show he had the firearm for “a lawful object.” A few years later England passed the 1937 Firearms Act. It extended restrictions to shotguns and granted chief constables the power to add conditions to individual firearm certificates. Clearly the power was in the hands of the state, not the individual.
Predictably such restrictions reduced the number of firearms in law-abiding citizens’ hands. Then came the Battle of Dunkirk in 1940. As the German war machine advanced, the British Expeditionary Force evacuated back across the English Channel. The retreat was costly. In their haste British troops abandoned most of their equipment. The massive loss of military arms, combined with the fact that the English people had been mostly disarmed, left the British people almost helpless before the advance of the Third Reich.

Luckily, they had gun-owning friends across the Atlantic. In 1940 a group of Americans, headed by C. Suydam Cutting, moved quickly to help rearm England’s citizens. They established the “American Committee for Defense of British Homes” and ran an ad in the November 1940 issue of American Rifleman that read in part: “British Civilians, undergoing nightly air raids, are in desperate need of Firearms – Binoculars – Steel Helmets – Stop-Watches – Ammunition.” The ad then said, “If you possess any of these articles you can aid in the battle of Britain by sending these materials to American Committee for Defense of British Homes.”
Hession, who was then working for Winchester Arms, decided to make a statement. He sent his prized Springfield Model 1903 to the American Committee for Defense of British Homes. Before he did he had two plates attached to its stock. The one on the rifle’s butt read: “This rifle was used by Major John W. Hession” and was used “in winning Olympics Bisley England 1908 – Grand Aggregate Camp Perry 1908 – Worlds 800 YD. Record Camp Perry 1909 … .” A plate placed on the rifle’s fore-end read: “FOR OBVIOUS REASONS THE RETURN OF THIS RIFLE AFTER GERMANY IS DEFEATED WOULD BE DEEPLY APPRECIATED.”
Hession’s rifle was shipped to England. Before the end of the war the NRA alone sent more than 7,000 private firearms to England. The U.S. government, of course, sent many more. Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. Almost immediately, quantities of “U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1” and others were headed across the Atlantic.
Winston Churchill was appreciative. He wrote in Their Finest Hour: “When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all ports to receive their cargoes. The Home Guard in every county, in every village, sat up through the night to receive them ... . By the end of July we were an armed nation ... . Anyhow, if we had to go down fighting … a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands … .”
England, of course, was victorious after American troops entered the war and made the difference. And wonderfully, after the war Hession’s rifle found its way back from England to Hession. It can now be seen in the NRA’s National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Va.
Flash Forward to the 2012 Olympics
By this time Grey had finished his whiskey and soda and was staring at the melting ice at the bottom of his glass. Even though he was dry, I wasn’t going to let him off without bayoneting the last of his anti-gun point of view. So I said, “Perhaps it is too obvious at this point to use the old axiom ‘those who don’t know their history are bound to repeat it,’ nevertheless today, sadly, Britain is again a disarmed nation.”
So disarmed, I pointed out, that law-abiding residents were helpless when Tottenham’s gangster youth decided to loot stores, mug residents and vandalize automobiles in August 2011 after police had shot and killed a person following a car chase.
Tottenham’s High Road was ground zero for the riots, which have an interesting tie-in to the history outlined here. The “Tottenham Outrage” of 1909—yes, the same “Tottenham” where the 2011 riots took place—was a famous gunfight that exhibited a very different English character.
Two men in Tottenham, armed with semi-automatic handguns, attempted to rob a payroll truck, but when the guards fought back the robbers fled on foot. The chase lasted two hours and covered about six miles as officers and armed civilians pursued the robbers. In the end one of the thieves committed suicide and the other later died in surgery. One officer and one civilian were also killed. The bravery of the officers and civilians prompted the creation of the Kings Police Medal and the funeral processions for the slain officer and the civilian passed through streets lined with mournful Londoners.
Yes, a lot has changed since the English people gave up their right to bear arms.
These days, to obtain a firearm certificate in England the police must be convinced that a person has “good reason” to own a firearm, and that he can be trusted with it “without danger to the public safety or to the peace.” English firearms licenses are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting, collecting or work-related reasons for ownership. And no, since 1946, self-defense has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm—nor has national defense. So those armed civilians who helped the police in the Tottenham Outrage would, at best, only be bystanders today and at worst be victims.
Indeed, England’s Firearms Act of 1997 banned the private ownership of handguns almost completely. The ban is so restrictive that even England’s Olympic pistol team had to go abroad to practice. That became such a national embarrassment that the English government passed a special dispensation to allow the shooting events to be held in England during the 2012 games.
It’s also worth noting that at the opening ceremonies for the 1908 Olympics held in England—the one Hession had competed in—the USA team noticed there was no American flag among the national flags flying in the stadium. As a result, team USA’s captain and flag-bearer, Martin Sheridan, refused to dip the Stars and Stripes as he passed King Edward VII’s box during the parade of athletes. “This flag dips to no earthly king,” Sheridan later explained.
After relating all of this history to Grey, I ended with the moral of the story: “Now don’t you fret Grey, if your people ever need to protect their freedom again from threats domestic or foreign, thanks to the NRA, Americans will be there to help rearm your populace all over again.”
He didn’t even attempt a retreating volley

[TX82FIAT]

Looks like I'm going to have to go out and buy the Ruger high capacity pistol I've been thinking about for years. These proposed laws are out of control. Can you imagine, Mam, now that your husband has passed you can not use or sell this handgun he owned. It must be forfeited to the government. I've never owned a handgun. The reason for this purchase is simple. It is a matter of time before someone thinks they are entitled to my stuff and comes knocking. Most people including myself laugh at the survival prep folks. However, I do know first hand that when things go south in a country such as wide spread power outages or an inability to get food to market for a variety of reasons... It is only a matter of time from a few days to a couple weeks before normally well mannered people are carring our violent acts in a primitive survival mode.

I love America, it is unfortunate that the average person today has an inability to look 5, 10 and 20 years down the line to make sound decisions today that will benefit us all in the future. We are completely absorbed by our current circumstances and unable to sacrifice today for the hbenefit of tomorrow. This gun control issue is the tip of the iceberg. We have a modern culture that gravitates to what is easy and can be sold to the people (we accept what we are told without regaurd for fact or history) . If we accepted the challenge to do what was difficult and could actually implement real change we would be the country of our forefathers.

[RRoller123]

Hey Redline, I have a Swiss, Schmidt Rubin 1947 K-31 that is my favorite and most accurate rifle. I still have the name tag under the butt plate with the name of the original person that it was issued to. I will dig it out and see if you can help identify where this location might be? It would be interesting if the fellow were still alive. My understanding is that the Swiss still issue arms to all households with males of age, and that these SIG full autos are kept locked at home and with a significant amount of ammunition as well, to ensure that an large, firearms-trained army could be raised at a moment's notice. My understanding is that marksmanship is highly regarded by the Swiss and that regular visits to the range keep you well sharp and prepared. And the Swiss clearly have an astronomically low gun violence rate. Bravo to you if all this is true!

[Jimb]

“Now don’t you fret Grey, if your people ever need to protect their freedom again from threats domestic or foreign, thanks to the NRA, Americans will be there to help rearm your populace all over again.”
He didn’t even attempt a retreating volley

I completely understand why he had no comeback....I'm speechless too.

[Redline]

The Wikipedia page sums up pretty well gun laws in Switzerland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... witzerland

Yes, Swiss males are required to do military service from the age of 18 to about 35. You can get out of it with good reason (medical) or you can also object on moral grounds and do civil duty instead. Military service is a 4-5 month initial training, followed by annual periods of 2-3 weeks. With the exception of those who are officers, most Swiss males find military service to be a necessary evil (2/3 of Swiss still generally support the system, if not the details of expenditure and strategy) but would not be particularly upset if it were abolished. Yes, each is issued a military assault rifle and is required to do annual training. Yes, they keep it at home. Following a national referendum a few years back, ammunition is now kept in central depots (before then, each conscript was issued 50 rounds, to be kept in a sealed container which was audited each year). Shooting and shooting clubs are popular, quite social, and the Swiss are generally quite skilled at it. I often go for summer runs and bike rides in the evening to the sound of rifle fire in the rural shooting ranges. It's not really what everyone here wants to hear. The underlying goal of all this military service and home storage of guns is in principal to have a quickly-mobilisable army, but most here realise that this is about as useful as the WWII "Reduit" mentality of the Swiss (a grand plan involving concrete bunkers throughout the country and strategic explosive charges on main transport routes to isolate Switzerland and allow a certain core group to retreat into the hills).

I wouldn't say that the Swiss have an astronomically low rate of gun violence. It is true that the Swiss have a relatively low per capita rate of gun violence, compared to a high rate of gun ownership / possession, but it is somewhat disturbing that guns are responsible for about 70% of all homicides here (itself a relatively low number), which is why many still do not consider it "low". On the one hand, the figures support the argument that the key to keeping violence down overall is to address the underlying society aspects first - the guns are secondary. Switzerland is an affluent country with a well-developed social system and a strong moral backbone (although the banks seem to be doing everything they can to screw this up). This goes a long way to keeping crime rates low and I feel very safe here. However, the high proportion of gun deaths also points to the aspect of convenience. The issue has been discussed intelligently and relatively calmly at length here, with even gun owners acknowledging that the presence of a gun allows things to quickly escalate (especially in the wake of one shooting in local parliament in 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zug_massacre), the first crime of that magnitude in Switzerland, and a few high-profile murder suicides). I would say that the deterrents in place before the changes to the law (careful audits of munition and strict penalties) went a long way to preventing crime with the military-issued weapons. I believe there was also a requirement for secure storage in the home (preventing thefts of opportunity). But those laws already implied a level of registration and control that many Americans oppose in the current debate. After some minor grumbling about the changes to the law (central storage of ammunition), nobody really discussed it again. The general opinion is now that, if indeed mobilisation of all these conscripts is necessary, the trip to the local military stores will not dramatically slow the process.

It's interesting to consider the historical similarities or differences between countries. Switzerland is of course a neutral island, and quite proud of their independent nature, but with a certain history of brutal and effective military resistance (far back):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sempach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Murten

But this is also tempered by the reality of being a Confederation for 7 centuries. The Swiss have always been masters of compromise in their internal politics, which is not always easy in a country with four distinct languages and cultures and 26 individual cantons. Part of the success is the level of split between federal, cantonal and local political power. The other important aspect is the power of the national referendum, a pillar of policy making in what is very much a direct democracy. All just points to consider in such debates. The Swiss are often presented as an example in gun ownership debates, but one needs to understand the whole story (history, controls, social environment).

It has been interesting to follow the debate over the last 15 years here. I grew up in a gun-free household in Toronto, then hung around with friends in the countryside in Ontario who were hunters. My Swiss father-in-law is a hunter and regularly participates in shooting competitions. I have generally no problem with the basic concept of gun ownership, but I have no desire to own or shoot a gun myself. I go hiking with my father-in-law while he hunts, but the gun itself makes me uncomfortable and its storage in their house still makes me uneasy (reference growing up gun free in Toronto). I tend not to get involved in debates about gun ownership or laws in the USA because it's not really any of my business. However, local gun policy has influenced my own personal decisions about where to travel in the states and where to pursue my career.

The longer I live here, the more I see the value of a process of national discussion followed by a binding referendum on certain issues. An interesting option in the future for such thorny issues in Canada or the US? I wonder.

[RRoller123]

From Wiki:

"Thus, while the rest of Europe was plagued by revolutionary uprisings, the Swiss drew up a constitution which provided for a federal layout, much of it inspired by the American example. This constitution provided for a central authority while leaving the cantons the right to self-government on local issues. Giving credit to those who favoured the power of the cantons (the Sonderbund Kantone), the national assembly was divided between an upper house (the Swiss Council of States, 2 representatives per canton) and a lower house (the National Council of Switzerland, representatives elected from across the country). Referenda were made mandatory for any amendment of this constitution.[23]"

Sounds a little like the American model, other than the national referenda. The big problem we have here now, (unrecognized by far too many citizens) is the enormous shift of power away from the several sovereign states to the Federal system, which is interposing itself into nearly every aspect of our lives in the US. This tide has been running strong since roughly the mid-1960's, and is well in now. How do you Swiss keep the balance of power in control? We had, by design, hoped that the USSJC would do it, but this turns out to be terribly flawed. For example, when a socialist such as Obama gets into power and has possibly 2 more picks over the next 4 years, we become a socialist nation, along the lines of the EU model. No legal or legislative effort could stop it. Chief Justice Roberts made a political versus Constitutional decision when he upheld the ACA. The US federal government now has the power to force any individual to buy any product that it wants, and for any reason, it can now impose a punative tax for non-compliance.

I believe that it was thought, by our brilliant founders a couple of centuries ago, that the people appointed to the court would follow the wording of the Constitution and the intent of each article or amendment, and if the people then didn't like the result and wished to change things, they could go change things. What a surprise we have gotten, when 9 people effectively control the future of the nation, and act politically! Not sure the founders ever thought this would happen, but it is an obvious flaw in our system. It throws the balance of power off significantly.

[Redline]

First, the Swiss avoid partisan politics. The cabinet of the Swiss government is determined by a "Zauberformel" (magic formula) which gives equal representation to the major political parties. Parties exist to provide different viewpoints to the various debates and discussions but, with the exception of the SVP (self-proclaimed Swiss People's Party), none strive for absolute power. The cabinet operates according to the perceived rules of "concordance", which require representation of the opposition view (achieved with the Zauberformel) but also, and this is important, requires that all parties are committed to reach a compromise on issues to be able to move forward. No one here can understand the paralyzing deadlocks that are reached in American politics. Second, the "presidency" is largely a diplomatic role, with a different member of the cabinet rotating into this position each year. There is no absolute power at the personal level either. Third, and this is the big one, the people determine much of the country's policy, not just constitutional change, through referenda. The Swiss have a habit of voting for the greater good, not for the advancement of the individual. They have repeatedly voted for higher taxes, increased petrol costs, stricter gun controls, equal rights (but were hopelessly late with giving women the right to vote) etc.

Once you start speaking about a "socialist nation", with the implication that this is a negative thing, then that's where I have to point out that Switzerland would probably be a "socialist" state by your description and I'm right in there with my support of the Swiss. However, the system that the Swiss have, and most of the EU, is far from pure socialism, and it's a pretty bold statement to also say that Obama's policies are "socialist". They are oriented to sharing the wealth to some degree, granted, but not going so far as to have state ownership of everything. Essential services are federally controlled, and of course it's up to the society to decide what are essential, central issues and which are issues to be run at the state level. As a Canadian, I could never understand the perceived focus on the individual over the society in the US philosophy. If you think a "socialist" state is bad, well that's your right and I support your right to believe that. The last decade has pretty much proven that neoliberalism is fatally flawed, and has contributed to the class split that has helped to fuel violence (to hook a little back into the original topic of the thread). Me, I'd be happy to spend some time in Sweden. I have a lot of professional colleagues living and working there and nobody says anything negative about the tax rate (approaching 50%) or the level of government control, only the quality of life and the respect of the society for all members.

Oddly enough, Sweden has very strict gun laws in terms of registration and obtaining a permit, but are pretty open about what you can own, even automatic weapons (in theory). Their gun homicide rate is dramatically lower than the Swiss, although the ownership rate is not so much lower. The same with Norway. Now, both countries have also had very notable and tragic shootings in the past decade, but overall rates are low, which again points out the complex nature of the problem and that we can't focus on only the guns (but also not deny that the guns have a significant role in facilitating violence).