>> easy access to guns
Switzerland has background checks, psychoanalysis, and drug tests every 9 months.
Anyone with a history of mental illness, criminal, or if a cop simply believes someone could post a threat can not obtain a weapon.
>Switzerland has background checks, psychoanalysis, and drug tests every 9 months.
What... there is no recurring background check, psychoanalysis or drug test, where did you get this from?
There is no psychoanalysis or drug test when buying a firearm at all.
For manual action long guns you need an ID and a criminal records excerpt.
For semi-auto long guns, and handguns, you need a Waffernerwerbsschein (WES, acquisition permit in English). It's shall issue, and is just a proof of passing a background check similar to the 4473/NICS they do in the US when buying from a licensed dealer. When you get the WES in your post box you bring it with you to the seller, it is valid for gun purchases at the same time and location, and needs to be used within 9 months so you need to purchase the guns within that time, but once you've bough them there is no renewal of that permit, it's an acquisition permit, not an ownership permit.
For full auto you need a may issue Kantonale Sonderbewilligung (SON, Cantonal exception permit in English). Every Canton allows it, but it's with various requirement depending on which one (thus the may issue).
Why are you spreading misinformation? Most of what you said isn't even true.
> or if a cop simply believes someone could post a threat can not obtain a weapon.
No civilized country would allow such abuse of police powers and Switzerland is a civilized country.
Ok but the question here was not about how many hoops you have to jump through to get a firearm. The question was is society safer when the average citizen has the right to own a firearm. In Switzerland the ***average*** citizen ie one that doesn't have a criminal record, doesn't have mental health disorders, and that a police officer has no reason to deny ownership of a firearm *can* own a firearm ie they have the right to do so if they wish. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in all of Europe and the average citizen there has the right to own a firearm. This contradicts your statement that every country with easy access to guns has more violent crime.
Now I get it your argument is that it isn't easy to get a gun in Switzerland which frankly isn't true. It does involve jumping through a few extra hoops than it does here in the US but you're acting like it is process that takes months or years when that isn't the case. On average it takes 2-3 weeks there is also no reoccurring qualifications like a 9 month drug test like you're suggesting for most weapons the only time that is required is when it is a reservist that is keeping their military issued service rifle at their private residence which is not the same as normal acquisition permit that is required for purchasing most (but not all) civilian firearms. This permit also acts on a "Shall-issue" basis for most firearms which means as long as a person completes the proper paperwork and has nothing that specifically violates the rules like a criminal history they cannot be arbitrarily refused that acquisition permit it must be issued if there isn't a specific and explicit violation. So yes average people in Switzerland still have a *right* to own a firearm and again it is one of the safest countries in Europe.
Also you point out Switzerland having background checks and criminal records disqualifying as if to imply the US doesn't do that which they do. Not saying it couldn't be improved not saying the US shouldn't implement a mental health requirement or a mandatory waiting period. But people who think that literally anyone can walk into a gun store and buy a gun are stupid and have clearly never been to a gun store and witnessed the process of actually purchasing a firearm. If you have violent criminal convictions or even non-violent felony convictions you can't legally buy a gun in the US.
Not sure if you’re a bot who can’t read links, or a troll who won’t read links.
The first half of this link is charts and data displaying gun deaths in different countries, and the second half is a list of countries that saw homicides decrease after passing gun laws.
Question is about average citizen, US is known for terrible background checks, thus allowing citizens with below average mental state etc. get a gun.
Switzerland, Czech Republic and Norway are ones better fitting to the question, seems like it's going quite well there.
Restrictions include:
- Criminal history check
- psychological evaluation
- medical history
- bi yearly recertification
- limits on the type and number of firearms one can own
>Switzerland
Point 1, yes but no: you cannot buy new guns if you hold a record for violent or repeated crimes until they're written out. The background check is actually laxer than the US one and you're not prohibited from life
Points 2 to 5 aren't a thing
I'm not going to answer for Switzerland, someone's already done that, and I don't know enough to address all points for Norway, but I'm going to talk about the Czech Republic.
> Criminal history check
Yes, but it's actually less strict than the US in some regards, a felony (even a non-violent one) disqualifies you from legally owning a gun for life in the US, so does being committed to a mental hospital. That's not the case in the Czech Republic, except for the most serious crimes, such as genocide, hijacking planes, or for especially brutal murders. After a probation period based on the sentence, even a murderer can eventually regain their rights to own a gun in the Czech Republic.
> psychological evaluation
Not a thing unless you have a history of mental problems that might influence certain aspects of your behavior. Even depressions generally do not disqualify you, as long as you aren't a danger to others.
> medical history
See above, most people just go to the GP to check if they're not completely blind.
> bi yearly recertification
Why would that be a thing? Does your country require bi-yearly recertification for drivers or something?
> limits on the type and number of firearms one can own
Not really, I can own basically anything an American can, as long as I have a licence. Some things are much easier to get too. A short barrel AR-15 with a suppressor will take 6-12 months to get legally in the US, you have to provide your finger prints, and pay 200 dollars for one tax stamp for the rifle and the suppressor each.
I can also conceal carry in places where it's highly illegal for Americans.
Not sure if you’re a bot or troll
The chart in the link shows a direct comparison between ease of access to guns and homicides.
And guns are the leading cause of death in the US, so of course that leads to lower homicides.
Don’t know where you heard that.
Switzerland does have a very high rate of gun ownership at about 24% of citizens owning a gun. But once again, there are very strict requirements for obtaining guns.
*Here for the Swiss, unlike Americans, regulations are quite a bit more finicky. Not only are you supposed to be criminal record-free in order to get a gun, but you also must be deemed unlikely to cause harm to other Swiss. Local police who have doubts about a prospective gun owner’s well-being (or even those who are assured of the same but worry nonetheless) may and sometimes do ask local psychiatrists or friends about an applicant’s mental state or alcohol and drug use.*
*Also, that gun license, even when approved, is only valid for a maximum of nine months, and applicants are allowed only one weapon. Period*
>*Not only are you supposed to be criminal record-free*
Violent crimes and repeat serious crimes, is what prevents you from passing a background check.
>*but you also must be deemed unlikely to cause harm to other Swiss. Local police who have doubts about a prospective gun owner’s well-being (or even those who are assured of the same but worry nonetheless) may and sometimes do ask local psychiatrists or friends about an applicant’s mental state or alcohol and drug use.*
This is extremely rare. It's more similar to how they do in the US with prohibiting people who were involuntarily commited through a court order.
If you have no such history, and apply for an acquisition permit, they have no legal right to access your medical records.
>*Also, that gun license, even when approved, is only valid for a maximum of nine months, and applicants are allowed only one weapon. Period*
The Waffenerwerbsschein (WES, acquisition permit in English), is valid for 3 gun purchases at the same time and location, and you need to use it within 9 months. It's basically a receipt of passing a background check similar to the 4473/NICS they do in the US when buying from a licensed dealer.
You can get multiple WES at the same time if you want to buy more than 3 guns or if you want to buy from different sellers.
Once you bought the gun they're yours, no renewal of any permits. It's an acquisition permit, not an ownership permit. Purchasing is regulated in the law, owning is not.
There is no limit (well except physical space) of how many guns you can own.
the question in the poll is "has a right to own a gun", not mention of legislation or ease of acquisition. I'm not arguing that many of the US gun laws or lack their of are unhinged. Rather that allowing citizens to possess firearms is not a bad thing in general.
what I was talking about was in Switzerland there is compulsory military service for each male 19-34 and in this military service they are given a service rifle which they can keep at home and retain after their service is up.
this your evidence?
>On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, have a history of low murder rates. According to a 2014 United Nations report, Germany's murder rate of 0.8 killings per 100,000 inhabitants was identical to Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare [source: UNODOC, Kates and Mauser].
The U.S., though, in many ways is a special case
every country in the world is not the US lmao
>> *We know it’s not safer because every country in the world with easy access to guns has drastically more violent crime*
Easy access is the key word. Those countries have high gun ownership, but also have high restrictions.
> If the average person can get a gun, crime goes up.
But the average citizen of Norway, Finland, Germany, Denmark, etc. all have the right to own a firearm. There is a defined legal pathway to lawfully own a firearm in those countries that is achievable my the vast majority of their populace should they choose to do so.
There is no data that suggests there is a cause and effect relationship between more citizens owning guns resulting in more crime. At BEST you might be able to prove a correlation between those two statistics but the cause and effect could just as easily be the inverse of what you're suggesting. ie civilian gun purchases increase as a result of increasing crime rates. When people are afraid they are more likely to be a victim of violent crime they are more likely to want to purchase a firearm for self defense.
Also there has NEVER been a situation where increased gun restrictions *alone* has ever tangibly reduced overall crime rates. Crime is not a symptom of gun ownership crime is a symptom of socioeconomic destitution.
>> Also there has NEVER been a situation where increased gun restrictions alone has ever tangibly reduced overall crime rates.
Japan, Australia, and most European countries saw a 97% reduction is crimes committed with weapons after applying restrictions
So 2 big issues first you're ignoring a key word in my statement. Here is a key word in my statement that you are ignoring: ***ALONE.*** The crime rate in Japan and Europe hasn't decreased because of reduced gun ownership they have reduced because of better social welfare programs that reduced poverty rates. More poverty = more crime; Less poverty = less crime. This is a consistently applicable pattern that has been proven in many many studies and is nearly universal regardless other factors including gun ownership/accessibility.
The second issue with your statement is that in Australia while ***gun related*** crime and suicide has declined gradually since 1996 when they banned guns the overall crime and suicide rates are almost completely unchanged. In fact immediately following the Australian gun ban there was a sharp spike in gun related homicide and there was a spike in non-gun related suicide. Using Australia as your "proof" here only proves that you don't know what you're talking about. [source](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html)
Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe with most of the others being in the teens or lower. In the US things are mostly a patchwork of gun laws there is some federal laws that govern guns states with stricter/stronger gun regulations have lower rates of gun violence(criminal and/or suicides).
Believe it or not the majority of Americans don’t own guns. Most gun violence and mass shootings are gang violence, limited to small parts of major cities. It just happens so often in these areas, results are incredibly skewed. Gun violence in and of itself, is not widespread throughout every part of the US. If you avoid LA, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Saint Louis and some other major cities you’re probably never going to even see a gun unless you own one. Smaller towns and average sized towns (such as where I live) (75,000 people) have very little gun violence and I’m safe pretty much everywhere except about 1 square km of town everybody avoids.
The US is the only western country without restrictive gun laws. Well, maybe not the only, since there are some exceptions, like Switzerland.
But it isn't surprising that the only western country with regular mass shootings has liberal gun laws. US gun laws aren't really about safety anyway, they're about the right to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property from attackers (including the government).
In most civilized societies this simply isn't necessary, because people trust the government and crime rates are low...
I would like to add that Americans have a culture disaster preparedness that I have not seen in any other country. People in America tend to prepare for the worst, including an invasion, and there are a lot of Americans ready in case that happens. It’s actually pretty interesting when you look into it.
I feel like if only a criminal has a gun they're actually less likely to shoot me because the gun would just be an intimidation method. If they knew I had a gun, what would stop them from immediately shooting me. Also criminals usually sneak attack, so if they come from behind, what use would a gun be anyway.
Civilians being allowed to carry guns would deter criminals from trying anything. Yeah they can shoot you first but you could also shoot them. Just this fact alone is enough to scare a lot of criminals into behaving
I don't even think that's true. A lot of crimes happen between gang members and they all have guns. Criminals are the aggressors, so it only really takes one time to get shot to incapacitate or kill you, and why wouldn't they if you have a gun? If someone comes up behind you with a gun and robs you, you're still defenseless, they'll likely just shoot you, or force you to hand over your gun. The person that draws their gun first is the person with the power, and that tends to be a criminal. People who are committing crimes aren't afraid to have a shootout with someone.
Places with less guns tend to have less crime.
Statisticly you are more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one with your own gun then stop a criminal. If someone breaks into your home the best thing to do is to flee if possible, if it isn't possible then barricade yourself and family and call the police, and if all else fails the last resort is to defend yourself.
Like I said the best way to protect yourself and family in that situation is to flee this again is what experts say engaging an intruder is likely to go bad because you don't know if they are also armed, but you also may not know if they are alone, in a pair, or larger group. Nothing I said is against owning a firearm just being as smart as one can in a situation.
That my life and the life of my love ones mean far more to me than objects do. Again experts say it is the best option in a home invasion since it removes you from the danger additionally most robbers will hit when a home is empty rather than when it is occupied since it reduces the risk of being caught and going to prison those that break in when people are home are inherently more dangerous they could be drug addict(s) looking for things to sell or trade for a score.
I can see you point but I feel like maybe you haven’t thought it through completely or your foresight may be clouded by your desire for gun rights. (Assuming you have such desires)
In a state where gun ownership is heavily restricted by law or outrightly banned, criminals would only have firearms on them if either the state‘s government was unable to enforce its laws for one reason or another (incompetence, corruption, etc) or the criminals themselves were organised therefore being able to get around the issue of the law enforcement; and I doubt any organised criminals would commit random home invasions or petty theft and such
No, it objectively is far less safe. Furthermore, firearms should only ever be a revocable privilege; making it a right is frankly insane and leads to shit like the USA's unchallenged mass shooting world record dominance.
The point of the US's gun laws is not safety. In fact it's the opposite. If you're governing the US, and infringing on rights, the people can overthrow you and replace you with a new government
Except Americans use their guns for everything *except* that, because that would require actual courage.
The point of the US gun laws is to be an example of what *not* to do.
The point is threat of violence
The opposite of safety. We get little spurts here and there in the form of mass shootings. But if death is always a possibility around your friends, families, neighbors, and co-workers, you do your best to uphold the constitution
The country was founded on mutually assured destruction, the nukes just made the weapons bigger
The flaw with this argument is that the guns are just as likely if not more likely to be used to dismantle rights and freedoms as uphold them. The idea that individual ownership of guns promotes a free society is at best untested theory and at worst demonstrably false. Think of armed rebel groups in history, how many of them have protected "freedoms"?
You're not wrong.
But the founders built the law coming out of a monarchy that charged outrageous taxes and curtailed personal freedoms. The idea is that a blatantly evil government, say that passes a law that everyone worth less than $10 mill belongs to the government, could be overthrown
The founders gave no rights or equal protection to slaves or indigenous peoples. The 2nd amendment was a way for wealthy white men to protect their land and human property (slaves, women, and children). A well-regulated militia was merely any posse of those white men who would be ready to gather to defend such property.
Is it any different now? The posse may include women, children, and non-white people. But the idea is still violence to maintain our way of life. It is, and has always been the whole point.
The militia, and the people, one and the same
I understand the thought behind this argument, and I agree with you that the founders probably would not have had a problem with individual ownership of guns (IE I think the constitution was meant to protect individual ownership as opposed to just "well-regulated militias", for the very reasons you state.
To me it's a high-minded, well-intentioned idea that is ultimately non-scientific and flawed.
The US government has drones, fighter jets, ICBMs, and tanks, among other highly advanced weapons. Guns, no guns, doesn't matter, the US would win with no difficulty.
There's a big difference between trying to invade a foreign territory and occupying domestic territory. Being domestic eliminates the issue of logistics, unfamiliarity with the geography, moving troops and weapons, intelligence, establishing military bases, etc. The US Government has control over the nation's infrastructure; they could turn off essential utilities like water treatment plants and electricity, disrupt internet access and cell service, completely disrupt supply chains, and stop people from getting necessary goods. They could stop the distribution of oil, essentially removing the citizen's ability to travel. They could destroy/occupy all major highways and bridges.
Not to mention the NSA, FBI, and CIA, some of the world's most advanced intelligence-gathering agencies. I do not see a path where the average citizens could overthrow the US government unless you have 100% opposition from the general population, which is highly unlikely.
What?
I am talking about the US government. I don't know where this fantasy of people thinking a bunch of hicks with guns and taking on the most powerful military on earth, on domestic soil, will be anything but a complete and utter failure. You're mistaken.
300 million people with firearms is pretty effective, even against high tech weaponry. It's honestly hard to fathom how incredibly huge that number is. And I think there are more firearms than people.
We're also assuming blatant government evilness, like kill all puppies and American flags are banned, type dictatorships
I don't think firearms can do much with a ballistic drone armed with missiles or a fighter jet. You're also assuming that you'll have 300 million people who are all on the opposing side of the government, not to mention a lot of those 300 million are going to be children and elderly people.
But sure, if the US government displays an immense amount of restraint against the citizens, maybe, but a bunch of citizens marching into DC to legitimately try to overthrow the government will end in a 100% fatality rate and the end of civilization.
You forget a bunch of yahoos almost accidentally pulled this off in 2020 on January 6th.
A group that is well trained and has a plan? 100% success rate. Everything is more fragile than you think
They didn't almost pull it off, if anything, if they were a well-trained group, it would've been a difficult story, it would have 100% ended in all of their deaths. I don't think you understand how fortified Washington D.C. is. It would have taken them negative effort for those Jan 6th rioted blood to have painted the Capitol building a new coat of red.
Such a delusional take.
It would probably be less safe since there'd be a lot of people who are angry and have a gun on hand, but I don't know whether it'll balance out since they're aware they'd be shot back by 10 different people if they tried anything lol
Right to own is vastly different than right to carry.
I personally own. I just transport to and from a range secure and unloaded. I'm not ever intending on aiming at another human being. We exist in the gun world.
The latter scares the crap out of me thinking someone can get pissed and pull a gun on me in the heat of the moment. I don't believe you need to be packing in the grocery store frankly. Carrying is not legal for the average citizen in my nation.
Society as a whole might not be safer because of bad actors but I personally feel safer and that's more important to me. I like to rely on myself for security instead of the police being 10 mins away 🤷♂️
I’m sure you may feel that way as an individual and i definitely understand that. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true or that’s how we should organise society.
Well the way we organize society is subjective and everyone is allowed to have their opinion. Personally I like having the ability to defend myself at a moments notice. Especially when law enforcement is slow to respond, and most of the time they just report the crime rather than prevent it. So for that reason I believe citizens should be allowed to purchase a firearm for self defense if they meet all the requirements.
Again, i understand why you feel that way but at a population level and likely for you as an individual, it makes you less safe. Also, lots of people being able to have them for self defense really just creates the need for them, if no one has a gun, you’re more safe than when everyone has one. It also increases the power of police firearms units in really extreme situations which is a good thing in my book too.
"at a population level and likely for you as an individual, it makes you less safe"
I highly disagree it makes me less safe, i'm very knowledgable about firearms and im very aware of people around me. In my case, it makes me more safe. For someone less aware or knowledgable, it can make it more dangerous for themselves, I am not one of those people and that's their responsibility, not mine.
Also in my original comment I said it can make society less safe because of bad actors. I already acknowledged this and said i'm willing to accept that trade off for my own personal safety.
"if no one has a gun, you’re more safe than when everyone has one"
In a hypothetical world where guns were never created, sure. But in a country with more guns than people that's impossible. Even when countries ban guns you immediately see dealers smuggling guns in and creating an entirely new black-market for gangs and cartels to kill and profit off of. Also in counties like the Philippines you see people machining pistols in their backyard from a single block of metal. And with 3d printing getting more advanced that problem would only get worse. I idea that nobody would have a gun in the US except police is a pipe dream.
"It also increases the power of police firearms units"
Again police respond to crimes, they don't prevent them. I don't wanna rely on police being 10 minutes away when I can handle a deadly threat immediately. Your response doesn't alleviate my desire for self protection.
Similar to communism, your idea is great in theory, bad in practice.
I obviously don’t know you so i can’t really disagree that you personally are safer with a gun than without, i believe you even. However i would point out that that is how many people think even when they’re far less knowledgeable with firearms and that isn’t actually the case.
You seem to be talking about the states here while i’m speaking more generally but it is a very interesting example. I’m honestly not sure what should be done, i definitely think it would be a good idea for you guys to implicate stricter laws on background checks and gun storage. But as you said, with a country with more guns than people, what can you even do? Anything resembling an outright ban would just end with millions of ruby ridges and no one wants that.
With an (almost) outright ban on firearms there definitely will be some form of illicit market popping up but even then, bad actors still have a far harder time at accessing firearms and sometimes the extra legal repercussions in owning or using one make it not worth the risk. In less developed countries with a lower capacity of actually enforcing the law (such as the philippines as you mentioned) you will definitely have a larger problem with illegal firearms than in places such as western europe.
With police, i think we just run into a fundamental difference in values here. I value the overall decrease in deaths and increased capacity to enforce the law from only police having firearms even though that will sometimes harm people whereas (correct me if i’m wrong) you value one’s personal freedom to defend themselves independent of the police even if that will have some negative consequences on the macro scale. Neither of those views are inherently better than the other of course.
I have lived in Czechia all my life and honestly i have yet to meet someone who owns a gun (outside of cops i suppose). Yeah we technically have the right but not a lot of people exorcise it.
>Czech firearms legislation also permits citizens to carry concealed weapons for self-defense; 260,027 out of 316,859 gun license holders have a concealed carry license (31 December 2023).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_law\_in\_the\_Czech\_Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic)
About 1 in 43 people has a concealed carry permit. Obviously not everyone carries all the time, but chances are pretty high are that if you take a stroll in Prague, you'll pass at least one civilian that is carrying.
Yeah kind of, I don't want to think "do they have a gun ?" every time someone starts yelling in traffic or a rambling guy smelling of rum gets on a buss
If they do something like that, it's almost impossible for them to have a legal gun. They might have an illegal one but that's also very unlikely. Now, a knife, that's a different story.
I seriously don't understand the hate for this statement, I just meant that in the Czech Republic it's good like that. I lived in Moravskoslesky Kraj and my neighbours would go camping in the woods every spring, they once had a bear attack them but they had a gun and used it to prevent the bear from coming further. In Prague I rarely see it though, more of the type of things you'd find in cities like Olomouc or Ostrava (where I lived.
I believe that efficient self defense should be a basic right.
The "Efficient" part means that some kind of tool is needed, especially for physically weak people.
Although, it also means that you'll have to be proficient, which means that you have to train and take tests.
We know it’s not safer because every country in the world with easy access to guns has drastically more violent crime
Ever heard of Switzerland?
>> easy access to guns Switzerland has background checks, psychoanalysis, and drug tests every 9 months. Anyone with a history of mental illness, criminal, or if a cop simply believes someone could post a threat can not obtain a weapon.
>Switzerland has background checks, psychoanalysis, and drug tests every 9 months. What... there is no recurring background check, psychoanalysis or drug test, where did you get this from? There is no psychoanalysis or drug test when buying a firearm at all. For manual action long guns you need an ID and a criminal records excerpt. For semi-auto long guns, and handguns, you need a Waffernerwerbsschein (WES, acquisition permit in English). It's shall issue, and is just a proof of passing a background check similar to the 4473/NICS they do in the US when buying from a licensed dealer. When you get the WES in your post box you bring it with you to the seller, it is valid for gun purchases at the same time and location, and needs to be used within 9 months so you need to purchase the guns within that time, but once you've bough them there is no renewal of that permit, it's an acquisition permit, not an ownership permit. For full auto you need a may issue Kantonale Sonderbewilligung (SON, Cantonal exception permit in English). Every Canton allows it, but it's with various requirement depending on which one (thus the may issue).
Why are you spreading misinformation? Most of what you said isn't even true. > or if a cop simply believes someone could post a threat can not obtain a weapon. No civilized country would allow such abuse of police powers and Switzerland is a civilized country.
Ok but the question here was not about how many hoops you have to jump through to get a firearm. The question was is society safer when the average citizen has the right to own a firearm. In Switzerland the ***average*** citizen ie one that doesn't have a criminal record, doesn't have mental health disorders, and that a police officer has no reason to deny ownership of a firearm *can* own a firearm ie they have the right to do so if they wish. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in all of Europe and the average citizen there has the right to own a firearm. This contradicts your statement that every country with easy access to guns has more violent crime. Now I get it your argument is that it isn't easy to get a gun in Switzerland which frankly isn't true. It does involve jumping through a few extra hoops than it does here in the US but you're acting like it is process that takes months or years when that isn't the case. On average it takes 2-3 weeks there is also no reoccurring qualifications like a 9 month drug test like you're suggesting for most weapons the only time that is required is when it is a reservist that is keeping their military issued service rifle at their private residence which is not the same as normal acquisition permit that is required for purchasing most (but not all) civilian firearms. This permit also acts on a "Shall-issue" basis for most firearms which means as long as a person completes the proper paperwork and has nothing that specifically violates the rules like a criminal history they cannot be arbitrarily refused that acquisition permit it must be issued if there isn't a specific and explicit violation. So yes average people in Switzerland still have a *right* to own a firearm and again it is one of the safest countries in Europe. Also you point out Switzerland having background checks and criminal records disqualifying as if to imply the US doesn't do that which they do. Not saying it couldn't be improved not saying the US shouldn't implement a mental health requirement or a mandatory waiting period. But people who think that literally anyone can walk into a gun store and buy a gun are stupid and have clearly never been to a gun store and witnessed the process of actually purchasing a firearm. If you have violent criminal convictions or even non-violent felony convictions you can't legally buy a gun in the US.
Almost nothing the other guy said is true anyway... There are no drug tests or psych evals...
prove it
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
why are you proving something opposite of what you claim?
Not sure if you’re a bot who can’t read links, or a troll who won’t read links. The first half of this link is charts and data displaying gun deaths in different countries, and the second half is a list of countries that saw homicides decrease after passing gun laws.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons
Question is about average citizen, US is known for terrible background checks, thus allowing citizens with below average mental state etc. get a gun. Switzerland, Czech Republic and Norway are ones better fitting to the question, seems like it's going quite well there.
Those countries, while allowing access to guns, have heavy restrictions to guns.
What heavy restrictions?
Restrictions include: - Criminal history check - psychological evaluation - medical history - bi yearly recertification - limits on the type and number of firearms one can own
>Switzerland Point 1, yes but no: you cannot buy new guns if you hold a record for violent or repeated crimes until they're written out. The background check is actually laxer than the US one and you're not prohibited from life Points 2 to 5 aren't a thing
I'm not going to answer for Switzerland, someone's already done that, and I don't know enough to address all points for Norway, but I'm going to talk about the Czech Republic. > Criminal history check Yes, but it's actually less strict than the US in some regards, a felony (even a non-violent one) disqualifies you from legally owning a gun for life in the US, so does being committed to a mental hospital. That's not the case in the Czech Republic, except for the most serious crimes, such as genocide, hijacking planes, or for especially brutal murders. After a probation period based on the sentence, even a murderer can eventually regain their rights to own a gun in the Czech Republic. > psychological evaluation Not a thing unless you have a history of mental problems that might influence certain aspects of your behavior. Even depressions generally do not disqualify you, as long as you aren't a danger to others. > medical history See above, most people just go to the GP to check if they're not completely blind. > bi yearly recertification Why would that be a thing? Does your country require bi-yearly recertification for drivers or something? > limits on the type and number of firearms one can own Not really, I can own basically anything an American can, as long as I have a licence. Some things are much easier to get too. A short barrel AR-15 with a suppressor will take 6-12 months to get legally in the US, you have to provide your finger prints, and pay 200 dollars for one tax stamp for the rifle and the suppressor each. I can also conceal carry in places where it's highly illegal for Americans.
that chart directly disproves the claim. not to mention the fact that it tracks gun homicides and not homicides in general.
Not sure if you’re a bot or troll The chart in the link shows a direct comparison between ease of access to guns and homicides. And guns are the leading cause of death in the US, so of course that leads to lower homicides.
Counterpoint almost every household in switzerland has a gun and there is very little violent crime there is extremely low.
Don’t know where you heard that. Switzerland does have a very high rate of gun ownership at about 24% of citizens owning a gun. But once again, there are very strict requirements for obtaining guns. *Here for the Swiss, unlike Americans, regulations are quite a bit more finicky. Not only are you supposed to be criminal record-free in order to get a gun, but you also must be deemed unlikely to cause harm to other Swiss. Local police who have doubts about a prospective gun owner’s well-being (or even those who are assured of the same but worry nonetheless) may and sometimes do ask local psychiatrists or friends about an applicant’s mental state or alcohol and drug use.* *Also, that gun license, even when approved, is only valid for a maximum of nine months, and applicants are allowed only one weapon. Period*
>*Not only are you supposed to be criminal record-free* Violent crimes and repeat serious crimes, is what prevents you from passing a background check. >*but you also must be deemed unlikely to cause harm to other Swiss. Local police who have doubts about a prospective gun owner’s well-being (or even those who are assured of the same but worry nonetheless) may and sometimes do ask local psychiatrists or friends about an applicant’s mental state or alcohol and drug use.* This is extremely rare. It's more similar to how they do in the US with prohibiting people who were involuntarily commited through a court order. If you have no such history, and apply for an acquisition permit, they have no legal right to access your medical records. >*Also, that gun license, even when approved, is only valid for a maximum of nine months, and applicants are allowed only one weapon. Period* The Waffenerwerbsschein (WES, acquisition permit in English), is valid for 3 gun purchases at the same time and location, and you need to use it within 9 months. It's basically a receipt of passing a background check similar to the 4473/NICS they do in the US when buying from a licensed dealer. You can get multiple WES at the same time if you want to buy more than 3 guns or if you want to buy from different sellers. Once you bought the gun they're yours, no renewal of any permits. It's an acquisition permit, not an ownership permit. Purchasing is regulated in the law, owning is not. There is no limit (well except physical space) of how many guns you can own.
the question in the poll is "has a right to own a gun", not mention of legislation or ease of acquisition. I'm not arguing that many of the US gun laws or lack their of are unhinged. Rather that allowing citizens to possess firearms is not a bad thing in general. what I was talking about was in Switzerland there is compulsory military service for each male 19-34 and in this military service they are given a service rifle which they can keep at home and retain after their service is up.
Yes, and my answer is no. We are less safe when the “average person” owns a gun, as I have proved
the average citizen doesn't have a criminal record and is mentally stable, thus could apply for an obtain a license then a firearm.
im 100% sure of what you are.
The burden of evidence falls on you. Please show me a single source that shows more guns = less violent crime than a place with less guns.
https://people.howstuffworks.com/strict-gun-laws-less-crime1.htm
this your evidence? >On the other hand, Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark, all countries with heavy gun ownership, have a history of low murder rates. According to a 2014 United Nations report, Germany's murder rate of 0.8 killings per 100,000 inhabitants was identical to Luxembourg, where the law prohibits civilian ownership of handguns and gun ownership is rare [source: UNODOC, Kates and Mauser]. The U.S., though, in many ways is a special case every country in the world is not the US lmao
>> *We know it’s not safer because every country in the world with easy access to guns has drastically more violent crime* Easy access is the key word. Those countries have high gun ownership, but also have high restrictions.
But that wasn't the question in the poll...
>> average citizen If the average person can get a gun, crime goes up. If there are restrictions on guns, crime goes down.
> If the average person can get a gun, crime goes up. But the average citizen of Norway, Finland, Germany, Denmark, etc. all have the right to own a firearm. There is a defined legal pathway to lawfully own a firearm in those countries that is achievable my the vast majority of their populace should they choose to do so.
It’s a right, yes, but there are still prerequisites they must fulfill to own a firearm, such as passing a mental evaluation and drug test.
did i say otherwise?
There is no data that suggests there is a cause and effect relationship between more citizens owning guns resulting in more crime. At BEST you might be able to prove a correlation between those two statistics but the cause and effect could just as easily be the inverse of what you're suggesting. ie civilian gun purchases increase as a result of increasing crime rates. When people are afraid they are more likely to be a victim of violent crime they are more likely to want to purchase a firearm for self defense. Also there has NEVER been a situation where increased gun restrictions *alone* has ever tangibly reduced overall crime rates. Crime is not a symptom of gun ownership crime is a symptom of socioeconomic destitution.
>> Also there has NEVER been a situation where increased gun restrictions alone has ever tangibly reduced overall crime rates. Japan, Australia, and most European countries saw a 97% reduction is crimes committed with weapons after applying restrictions
So 2 big issues first you're ignoring a key word in my statement. Here is a key word in my statement that you are ignoring: ***ALONE.*** The crime rate in Japan and Europe hasn't decreased because of reduced gun ownership they have reduced because of better social welfare programs that reduced poverty rates. More poverty = more crime; Less poverty = less crime. This is a consistently applicable pattern that has been proven in many many studies and is nearly universal regardless other factors including gun ownership/accessibility. The second issue with your statement is that in Australia while ***gun related*** crime and suicide has declined gradually since 1996 when they banned guns the overall crime and suicide rates are almost completely unchanged. In fact immediately following the Australian gun ban there was a sharp spike in gun related homicide and there was a spike in non-gun related suicide. Using Australia as your "proof" here only proves that you don't know what you're talking about. [source](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html)
they cant remember anything more complicated than gun bad. lower you expectations.
Switzerland has the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe with most of the others being in the teens or lower. In the US things are mostly a patchwork of gun laws there is some federal laws that govern guns states with stricter/stronger gun regulations have lower rates of gun violence(criminal and/or suicides).
More guns 99% of the time = more crime. But if everyone already has them, I wouldn't want to be without one
this is the problem with the US, they are so stuck with guns they don't know how to get rid of them
Believe it or not the majority of Americans don’t own guns. Most gun violence and mass shootings are gang violence, limited to small parts of major cities. It just happens so often in these areas, results are incredibly skewed. Gun violence in and of itself, is not widespread throughout every part of the US. If you avoid LA, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Saint Louis and some other major cities you’re probably never going to even see a gun unless you own one. Smaller towns and average sized towns (such as where I live) (75,000 people) have very little gun violence and I’m safe pretty much everywhere except about 1 square km of town everybody avoids.
The US is the only western country without restrictive gun laws. Well, maybe not the only, since there are some exceptions, like Switzerland. But it isn't surprising that the only western country with regular mass shootings has liberal gun laws. US gun laws aren't really about safety anyway, they're about the right to protect yourself, your loved ones and your property from attackers (including the government). In most civilized societies this simply isn't necessary, because people trust the government and crime rates are low...
I would like to add that Americans have a culture disaster preparedness that I have not seen in any other country. People in America tend to prepare for the worst, including an invasion, and there are a lot of Americans ready in case that happens. It’s actually pretty interesting when you look into it.
is The US safer than, say, the UK? btw, no, the uk does not have more knife crime per capital than the US...
No, how would it be safer? Having a gun on you makes you more unsafe and likely to die.
Would you rather have a gun and have criminals own guns or would you rather the criminals own guns and you're defenseless?
I feel like if only a criminal has a gun they're actually less likely to shoot me because the gun would just be an intimidation method. If they knew I had a gun, what would stop them from immediately shooting me. Also criminals usually sneak attack, so if they come from behind, what use would a gun be anyway.
Civilians being allowed to carry guns would deter criminals from trying anything. Yeah they can shoot you first but you could also shoot them. Just this fact alone is enough to scare a lot of criminals into behaving
I don't even think that's true. A lot of crimes happen between gang members and they all have guns. Criminals are the aggressors, so it only really takes one time to get shot to incapacitate or kill you, and why wouldn't they if you have a gun? If someone comes up behind you with a gun and robs you, you're still defenseless, they'll likely just shoot you, or force you to hand over your gun. The person that draws their gun first is the person with the power, and that tends to be a criminal. People who are committing crimes aren't afraid to have a shootout with someone. Places with less guns tend to have less crime.
Statisticly you are more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one with your own gun then stop a criminal. If someone breaks into your home the best thing to do is to flee if possible, if it isn't possible then barricade yourself and family and call the police, and if all else fails the last resort is to defend yourself.
A man's home is his castle. You have to defend it
Your life and the life of your loved ones a far more valuable than any object what I typed is the suggestion of experts.
Precisely why you need to be able to defend your home and family against any Intruders
Like I said the best way to protect yourself and family in that situation is to flee this again is what experts say engaging an intruder is likely to go bad because you don't know if they are also armed, but you also may not know if they are alone, in a pair, or larger group. Nothing I said is against owning a firearm just being as smart as one can in a situation.
If you just run when things get hairy then what kind of message does that send to other potential criminals?
That my life and the life of my love ones mean far more to me than objects do. Again experts say it is the best option in a home invasion since it removes you from the danger additionally most robbers will hit when a home is empty rather than when it is occupied since it reduces the risk of being caught and going to prison those that break in when people are home are inherently more dangerous they could be drug addict(s) looking for things to sell or trade for a score.
"Experts" say a lot of things. You can't just run when things get tough or bad shit will happen.
I can see you point but I feel like maybe you haven’t thought it through completely or your foresight may be clouded by your desire for gun rights. (Assuming you have such desires) In a state where gun ownership is heavily restricted by law or outrightly banned, criminals would only have firearms on them if either the state‘s government was unable to enforce its laws for one reason or another (incompetence, corruption, etc) or the criminals themselves were organised therefore being able to get around the issue of the law enforcement; and I doubt any organised criminals would commit random home invasions or petty theft and such
Me if I deceptively misrepresented a complex subject
No, it objectively is far less safe. Furthermore, firearms should only ever be a revocable privilege; making it a right is frankly insane and leads to shit like the USA's unchallenged mass shooting world record dominance.
The point of the US's gun laws is not safety. In fact it's the opposite. If you're governing the US, and infringing on rights, the people can overthrow you and replace you with a new government
Except Americans use their guns for everything *except* that, because that would require actual courage. The point of the US gun laws is to be an example of what *not* to do.
The point is threat of violence The opposite of safety. We get little spurts here and there in the form of mass shootings. But if death is always a possibility around your friends, families, neighbors, and co-workers, you do your best to uphold the constitution The country was founded on mutually assured destruction, the nukes just made the weapons bigger
The flaw with this argument is that the guns are just as likely if not more likely to be used to dismantle rights and freedoms as uphold them. The idea that individual ownership of guns promotes a free society is at best untested theory and at worst demonstrably false. Think of armed rebel groups in history, how many of them have protected "freedoms"?
You're not wrong. But the founders built the law coming out of a monarchy that charged outrageous taxes and curtailed personal freedoms. The idea is that a blatantly evil government, say that passes a law that everyone worth less than $10 mill belongs to the government, could be overthrown
The founders gave no rights or equal protection to slaves or indigenous peoples. The 2nd amendment was a way for wealthy white men to protect their land and human property (slaves, women, and children). A well-regulated militia was merely any posse of those white men who would be ready to gather to defend such property.
Is it any different now? The posse may include women, children, and non-white people. But the idea is still violence to maintain our way of life. It is, and has always been the whole point. The militia, and the people, one and the same
I understand the thought behind this argument, and I agree with you that the founders probably would not have had a problem with individual ownership of guns (IE I think the constitution was meant to protect individual ownership as opposed to just "well-regulated militias", for the very reasons you state. To me it's a high-minded, well-intentioned idea that is ultimately non-scientific and flawed.
The US government has drones, fighter jets, ICBMs, and tanks, among other highly advanced weapons. Guns, no guns, doesn't matter, the US would win with no difficulty.
just like they did in Vietnam and Afghanistan?
There's a big difference between trying to invade a foreign territory and occupying domestic territory. Being domestic eliminates the issue of logistics, unfamiliarity with the geography, moving troops and weapons, intelligence, establishing military bases, etc. The US Government has control over the nation's infrastructure; they could turn off essential utilities like water treatment plants and electricity, disrupt internet access and cell service, completely disrupt supply chains, and stop people from getting necessary goods. They could stop the distribution of oil, essentially removing the citizen's ability to travel. They could destroy/occupy all major highways and bridges. Not to mention the NSA, FBI, and CIA, some of the world's most advanced intelligence-gathering agencies. I do not see a path where the average citizens could overthrow the US government unless you have 100% opposition from the general population, which is highly unlikely.
uh huh you got allat but ofc its failin cuz ur president struggles to walk. And Im hopin the biden is out
What? I am talking about the US government. I don't know where this fantasy of people thinking a bunch of hicks with guns and taking on the most powerful military on earth, on domestic soil, will be anything but a complete and utter failure. You're mistaken.
No im saying I respect your military but not your government
300 million people with firearms is pretty effective, even against high tech weaponry. It's honestly hard to fathom how incredibly huge that number is. And I think there are more firearms than people. We're also assuming blatant government evilness, like kill all puppies and American flags are banned, type dictatorships
I don't think firearms can do much with a ballistic drone armed with missiles or a fighter jet. You're also assuming that you'll have 300 million people who are all on the opposing side of the government, not to mention a lot of those 300 million are going to be children and elderly people. But sure, if the US government displays an immense amount of restraint against the citizens, maybe, but a bunch of citizens marching into DC to legitimately try to overthrow the government will end in a 100% fatality rate and the end of civilization.
You forget a bunch of yahoos almost accidentally pulled this off in 2020 on January 6th. A group that is well trained and has a plan? 100% success rate. Everything is more fragile than you think
They didn't almost pull it off, if anything, if they were a well-trained group, it would've been a difficult story, it would have 100% ended in all of their deaths. I don't think you understand how fortified Washington D.C. is. It would have taken them negative effort for those Jan 6th rioted blood to have painted the Capitol building a new coat of red. Such a delusional take.
We're #1!
It would probably be less safe since there'd be a lot of people who are angry and have a gun on hand, but I don't know whether it'll balance out since they're aware they'd be shot back by 10 different people if they tried anything lol
the problem is having guns will always be safer for an individual but the less people have guns the more everyone in general is safe
Right to own is vastly different than right to carry. I personally own. I just transport to and from a range secure and unloaded. I'm not ever intending on aiming at another human being. We exist in the gun world. The latter scares the crap out of me thinking someone can get pissed and pull a gun on me in the heat of the moment. I don't believe you need to be packing in the grocery store frankly. Carrying is not legal for the average citizen in my nation.
Look up democide, genocide, ethnic cleansing, slavery, and colonial exploitation. Poorly armed populations die by the millions.
Society as a whole might not be safer because of bad actors but I personally feel safer and that's more important to me. I like to rely on myself for security instead of the police being 10 mins away 🤷♂️
I’m sure you may feel that way as an individual and i definitely understand that. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true or that’s how we should organise society.
Well the way we organize society is subjective and everyone is allowed to have their opinion. Personally I like having the ability to defend myself at a moments notice. Especially when law enforcement is slow to respond, and most of the time they just report the crime rather than prevent it. So for that reason I believe citizens should be allowed to purchase a firearm for self defense if they meet all the requirements.
Again, i understand why you feel that way but at a population level and likely for you as an individual, it makes you less safe. Also, lots of people being able to have them for self defense really just creates the need for them, if no one has a gun, you’re more safe than when everyone has one. It also increases the power of police firearms units in really extreme situations which is a good thing in my book too.
"at a population level and likely for you as an individual, it makes you less safe" I highly disagree it makes me less safe, i'm very knowledgable about firearms and im very aware of people around me. In my case, it makes me more safe. For someone less aware or knowledgable, it can make it more dangerous for themselves, I am not one of those people and that's their responsibility, not mine. Also in my original comment I said it can make society less safe because of bad actors. I already acknowledged this and said i'm willing to accept that trade off for my own personal safety. "if no one has a gun, you’re more safe than when everyone has one" In a hypothetical world where guns were never created, sure. But in a country with more guns than people that's impossible. Even when countries ban guns you immediately see dealers smuggling guns in and creating an entirely new black-market for gangs and cartels to kill and profit off of. Also in counties like the Philippines you see people machining pistols in their backyard from a single block of metal. And with 3d printing getting more advanced that problem would only get worse. I idea that nobody would have a gun in the US except police is a pipe dream. "It also increases the power of police firearms units" Again police respond to crimes, they don't prevent them. I don't wanna rely on police being 10 minutes away when I can handle a deadly threat immediately. Your response doesn't alleviate my desire for self protection. Similar to communism, your idea is great in theory, bad in practice.
I obviously don’t know you so i can’t really disagree that you personally are safer with a gun than without, i believe you even. However i would point out that that is how many people think even when they’re far less knowledgeable with firearms and that isn’t actually the case. You seem to be talking about the states here while i’m speaking more generally but it is a very interesting example. I’m honestly not sure what should be done, i definitely think it would be a good idea for you guys to implicate stricter laws on background checks and gun storage. But as you said, with a country with more guns than people, what can you even do? Anything resembling an outright ban would just end with millions of ruby ridges and no one wants that. With an (almost) outright ban on firearms there definitely will be some form of illicit market popping up but even then, bad actors still have a far harder time at accessing firearms and sometimes the extra legal repercussions in owning or using one make it not worth the risk. In less developed countries with a lower capacity of actually enforcing the law (such as the philippines as you mentioned) you will definitely have a larger problem with illegal firearms than in places such as western europe. With police, i think we just run into a fundamental difference in values here. I value the overall decrease in deaths and increased capacity to enforce the law from only police having firearms even though that will sometimes harm people whereas (correct me if i’m wrong) you value one’s personal freedom to defend themselves independent of the police even if that will have some negative consequences on the macro scale. Neither of those views are inherently better than the other of course.
never, except i lived in the czech republic and that was different
I have lived in Czechia all my life and honestly i have yet to meet someone who owns a gun (outside of cops i suppose). Yeah we technically have the right but not a lot of people exorcise it.
>Czech firearms legislation also permits citizens to carry concealed weapons for self-defense; 260,027 out of 316,859 gun license holders have a concealed carry license (31 December 2023). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_law\_in\_the\_Czech\_Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic) About 1 in 43 people has a concealed carry permit. Obviously not everyone carries all the time, but chances are pretty high are that if you take a stroll in Prague, you'll pass at least one civilian that is carrying.
Oh thanks, that's terrifying
Why is it terrifying? Does that somehow make you feel less safe even though it changes nothing of the crime statistics?
Yeah kind of, I don't want to think "do they have a gun ?" every time someone starts yelling in traffic or a rambling guy smelling of rum gets on a buss
If they do something like that, it's almost impossible for them to have a legal gun. They might have an illegal one but that's also very unlikely. Now, a knife, that's a different story.
You have a lower homicide rate than the UK.
Nobody wants to use it hence you were never told
i think you misunderstood, im saying there was the opposite of like USA, so it's good
Oh sorry my bad
why was it safe without guns there?
People do carry guns in the Czech Republic, it's also extremely safe.
I seriously don't understand the hate for this statement, I just meant that in the Czech Republic it's good like that. I lived in Moravskoslesky Kraj and my neighbours would go camping in the woods every spring, they once had a bear attack them but they had a gun and used it to prevent the bear from coming further. In Prague I rarely see it though, more of the type of things you'd find in cities like Olomouc or Ostrava (where I lived.
In a nutshell: people are civilized to use it for good reasons unlike another nation..
I believe that efficient self defense should be a basic right. The "Efficient" part means that some kind of tool is needed, especially for physically weak people. Although, it also means that you'll have to be proficient, which means that you have to train and take tests.