And then you look at places like Switzerland where every adult male of military age is legally required to have a fully automatic assault rifle as a part of national defense. Very low crime rate, very low crimes committed with guns.

All those adult males have to have had military training before they're allowed to keep firearms at home. Since 2007 all ammunition (apart from that needed for daily work like airport guards) is kept in central arsenals. They are not allowed to keep any ammunition at home.

can you find any references that the Swiss even though they're allowed to have rifles at home, are not allowed to have ammo at their home? This makes no sense to me, and I've never heard that before.

http://www.swissinfo...html?cid=970614

Of course it makes sense. They're military reservists. Why would they need ammunition at home?

Maybe now we're getting somewhere:

http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2012/12/21/bloomberg-slams-nras-paranoid-dystopian-vision/

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-daily-news-and-new-york-post-have-brutal-covers-on-the-head-of-the-nra-after-his-press-conference-2012-12

And then you look at places like Switzerland where every adult male of military age is legally required to have a fully automatic assault rifle as a part of national defense. Very low crime rate, very low crimes committed with guns.

All those adult males have to have had military training before they're allowed to keep firearms at home. Since 2007 all ammunition (apart from that needed for daily work like airport guards) is kept in central arsenals. They are not allowed to keep any ammunition at home.

can you find any references that the Swiss even though they're allowed to have rifles at home, are not allowed to have ammo at their home? This makes no sense to me, and I've never heard that before.

http://www.swissinfo...html?cid=970614

Of course it makes sense. They're military reservists. Why would they need ammunition at home?

It doesn't make sense. I mean "why would they need ammunition at home"? Well, why would you need a fully automatic rifle without ammunition at home then?

And it's not like they couldn't go buy their own bullets and keep them at home.

It doesn't make sense. I mean "why would they need ammunition at home"? Well, why would you need a fully automatic rifle without ammunition at home then?

And it's not like they couldn't go buy their own bullets and keep them at home.

Not everywhere is like the USA, bullets arent available worldwide like candy. See Quote from Wiki

The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.

It doesn't make sense. I mean "why would they need ammunition at home"? Well, why would you need a fully automatic rifle without ammunition at home then?

And it's not like they couldn't go buy their own bullets and keep them at home.

Not everywhere is like the USA, bullets arent available worldwide like candy. See Quote from Wiki

The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.

If they have no ammunition for them, why do they keep them at home? If they have to go to an armory for ammunition in the event of a call-up, why not keep the weapons there and they can pick up both at the same time.

The only thing an unloaded weapon can be used for is to club somebody and baseball bats are a lot easier to wield and considerably more effective.

The US might not have the corner on gun stupidity.

I have never owned a gun, but used them in the Marines. I understand both sides of the issue, but as there are so many guns in the US already (and most people will not turn them in) I have no clue what to do about this problem.

Ban the manufacturing of ammunition. No work would have to be done regarding the 2nd so it could happen swiftly.

found this article on Swizerland, thought ti was interesting:

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

I can't help wondering why the Swiss still find it necessary to have military weapons in case of invasion. In any case, the Swiss record on gun-related crimes and suicides is not particularly good; not down to US standards, but worse than most of Western Europe. If you visit Switzerland, as I have on many occasions, you will find the country remarkably placid and law-abiding (outside, perhaps, Zurich). The only country where I have seen people on a railway platform setting their watches right by the time the train arrives..... I think, great though it is to visit, I could easily learn to loathe it!

But comparing Switzerland to the US is like comparing schoolboy football to the Premier League!

But comparing Switzerland to the US is like comparing schoolboy football to the Premier League!

That works both ways.

People always compare countries as if it is a valid comparison

Like in the of case touting murders per 100,000 etc. IMO that is nefarious at best.

How can you compare a country of 8 million with a country of over 300 million?

When it comes to the possibility for nutcases the total number of citizens or inhabitants

does make a difference. Number of insane people? Any stats on that?

I think if looked at against the total number of inhabitants or even population density in

certain areas that would be a clearer picture.

Or you can even look at it as something submaniacs link mentioned,

He points out that the bullets used in suicides are only a tiny fraction of the

75 million rounds of ammunition that are fired each year in Switzerland during military and civilian target practice.

Now realize that likely a Billion or more rounds are fired in the USA & measure it against fatalities.

I am not saying even one fatality is acceptable either.

But I am saying when people use numbers it can always be made to look pro or con the

point of contention if not looked at in relation to the whole.

If you want numbers, mania, 26.2% of Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year. And that's a Government figure.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml

I'm afraid I can't find a comparison between countries.

If you want numbers, mania, 26.2% of Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year. And that's a Government figure.

http://www.nimh.nih....ica/index.shtml

I'm afraid I can't find a comparison between countries.

Well there you have it. 26.2% is incredible.

But then again I imagine a good portion of those

are crazy for crazy benefits

Actually judging by the last Presidential election

I would put the crazies at more than 50%

Yes I am joking

If you want numbers, mania, 26.2% of Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year. And that's a Government figure.

http://www.nimh.nih....ica/index.shtml

I'm afraid I can't find a comparison between countries.

Well there you have it. 26.2% is incredible.

But then again I imagine a good portion of those

are crazy for crazy benefits

Actually judging by the last Presidential election

I would put the crazies at more than 50%

Yes I am joking

60% don't believe in evolution even though it is shown to be a fact. Mental disorder.

From sub's article:

"“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME.

That sense of social and civic responsibility is one of the reasons the Swiss have never allowed their guns to come under fire."

If you want numbers, mania, 26.2% of Americans suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year. And that's a Government figure.

http://www.nimh.nih....ica/index.shtml

I'm afraid I can't find a comparison between countries.

Well there you have it. 26.2% is incredible.

But then again I imagine a good portion of those

are crazy for crazy benefits

Actually judging by the last Presidential election

I would put the crazies at more than 50%

Yes I am joking

60% don't believe in evolution even though it is shown to be a fact. Mental disorder.

90% don't believe in statistics, so they can't be that crazy

56.32% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

It doesn't make sense. I mean "why would they need ammunition at home"? Well, why would you need a fully automatic rifle without ammunition at home then?

And it's not like they couldn't go buy their own bullets and keep them at home.

Not everywhere is like the USA, bullets arent available worldwide like candy. See Quote from Wiki

The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.

If they have no ammunition for them, why do they keep them at home? If they have to go to an armory for ammunition in the event of a call-up, why not keep the weapons there and they can pick up both at the same time.

Presumably guns require some sort of maintenance/cleaning that can be done at home rather than have to go to an arsenal to do it? You don't need ammo for that do you?

Presumably guns require some sort of maintenance/cleaning that can be done at home rather than have to go to an arsenal to do it? You don't need ammo for that do you?

No a gun is really only cleaned after being shot

Guns are stored safely for decades.

Armory's store thousands of weapons all over the world.

56.32% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Especially those by Government agencies (who obviously employ a good proportion of the 26.2% mentally disordered Americans.)

If they have no ammunition for them, why do they keep them at home?

That is a vey good point. It does not make any sense.

Thanks to Endure's informative revelation regarding ammunition, I did a little research. It appears that the anti-ammunition laws were a back door method of gun control by Switzerland's Socialist. (Nope, not being derogatory in calling them Socialists because it really was the Socialists.) Anyways, the Socialists had tried to ban the home possession of assault rifles. The cantons (the Swiss states) rejected that. So one no one was paying attention the Socialists then banned the home possession of ammunition.

http://www.larryelder.com/b/Switzerland-Strips-Citizens-of-Gun-Rights/-811932427219023535.html

If they have no ammunition for them, why do they keep them at home?

That is a vey good point. It does not make any sense.

The Swiss maintain an armed militia in order to discourage invasion. Each man has as many rifles as he needs, and in times of trouble, he reports to his regiment (battalion?) to repel the invader. If his regiment headquarters / armoury has been over-run, he can join up with any other regiment to obtain ammunition. However, he is not expected to fight and die on his own facing the invader, without the support of his comrades by his side.

The purpose of the Swiss militia is to defend their state against invaders, rather than to overthrow their own government, as in the case of the USA. The Swiss state does not place the full burden of that defence on the individual. But Swiss keep guns in their homes out of duty, not right

SC

It still makes no sense if the purpose it to repel invaders. The bad guys might cheat and not give the militia time to report to their regiment before taking over the country.

If they have no ammunition for them, why do they keep them at home?

That is a vey good point. It does not make any sense.

The Swiss maintain an armed militia in order to discourage invasion. Each man has as many rifles as he needs, and in times of trouble, he reports to his regiment (battalion?) to repel the invader. If his regiment headquarters / armoury has been over-run, he can join up with any other regiment to obtain ammunition. However, he is not expected to fight and die on his own facing the invader, without the support of his comrades by his side.

The purpose of the Swiss militia is to defend their state against invaders, rather than to overthrow their own government, as in the case of the USA. The Swiss state does not place the full burden of that defence on the individual. But Swiss keep guns in their homes out of duty, not right

SC

I understand the reasoning behind the weapons at home idea. What I cannot fathom is why these weapons are basically useless since the citizens have no ammunition with which to actually defend themselves.

I thought I read somewhere the Swiss can keep ammunition at home but not any that will fit their military weapons. At my age, perhaps I dreamed that.

I thought I read somewhere the Swiss can keep ammunition at home but not any that will fit their military weapons. At my age, perhaps I dreamed that.

I guess since 2007 they allow 2000 militia members to keep ammo at home.

Although it sounds like only 50 rounds?

Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency

http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland

found this article on Swizerland, thought ti was interesting:

http://world.time.co...ure-that-works/

from the link:

One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation.

“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

Read more:

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/#ixzz2FxksLlBG

The culture of responsibility...that no longer exists in the USA that's for sure.

found this article on Swizerland, thought ti was interesting:

http://world.time.co...ure-that-works/

from the link:

One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation.

“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

Read more:

http://world.time.co.../#ixzz2FxksLlBG

The culture of responsibility...that no longer exists in the USA that's for sure.

I finally agree with a point you make.

If they have no ammunition for them, why do they keep them at home?

That is a vey good point. It does not make any sense.

The Swiss maintain an armed militia in order to discourage invasion. Each man has as many rifles as he needs, and in times of trouble, he reports to his regiment (battalion?) to repel the invader. If his regiment headquarters / armoury has been over-run, he can join up with any other regiment to obtain ammunition. However, he is not expected to fight and die on his own facing the invader, without the support of his comrades by his side.

The purpose of the Swiss militia is to defend their state against invaders, rather than to overthrow their own government, as in the case of the USA. The Swiss state does not place the full burden of that defence on the individual. But Swiss keep guns in their homes out of duty, not right

SC

I understand the reasoning behind the weapons at home idea. What I cannot fathom is why these weapons are basically useless since the citizens have no ammunition with which to actually defend themselves.

They don't have weapons to defend themselves. They have weapons as part of a military force which assembles prior to going into action.

Thanks to Endure's informative revelation regarding ammunition, I did a little research. It appears that the anti-ammunition laws were a back door method of gun control by Switzerland's Socialist. (Nope, not being derogatory in calling them Socialists because it really was the Socialists.) Anyways, the Socialists had tried to ban the home possession of assault rifles. The cantons (the Swiss states) rejected that. So one no one was paying attention the Socialists then banned the home possession of ammunition.

http://www.larryelde...7219023535.html

The reconsideration of Swiss gun laws were a direct reaction to the Zug massacre. I don't know who Larry Elder is but words like 'socialist' and 'woman's magazine' (that's the reading kind not the shooting kind) don't strike fear into the hearts of many of us. I suspect that the Swiss weren't actually thinking about the ramifications on the US Constitution when they were trying to make sense of the 14 deaths that had just occurred.

The Swiss maintain an armed militia in order to discourage invasion. Each man has as many rifles as he needs, and in times of trouble, he reports to his regiment (battalion?) to repel the invader. If his regiment headquarters / armoury has been over-run, he can join up with any other regiment to obtain ammunition. However, he is not expected to fight and die on his own facing the invader, without the support of his comrades by his side.

The purpose of the Swiss militia is to defend their state against invaders, rather than to overthrow their own government, as in the case of the USA. The Swiss state does not place the full burden of that defence on the individual. But Swiss keep guns in their homes out of duty, not right

SC

I understand the reasoning behind the weapons at home idea. What I cannot fathom is why these weapons are basically useless since the citizens have no ammunition with which to actually defend themselves.

They don't have weapons to defend themselves. They have weapons as part of a military force which assembles prior to going into action.

Since they do not have weapons for self defense, perhaps I really don't understand the reasoning of why the weapons are kept in their homes?

If they are at work or out for dinner when the call up occurs and it is a real emergency, the soldier must first return to his home to get his weapon and then go to the armory to get his ammunition.

If the weapons were kept at the armory, they would only have to go from work or dinner to the armory to become real soldiers with guns and everything. Seems like a lot of unnecessary traveling.

Where is the logical Swiss mind in all of this?

The Swiss maintain an armed militia in order to discourage invasion. Each man has as many rifles as he needs, and in times of trouble, he reports to his regiment (battalion?) to repel the invader. If his regiment headquarters / armoury has been over-run, he can join up with any other regiment to obtain ammunition. However, he is not expected to fight and die on his own facing the invader, without the support of his comrades by his side.

The purpose of the Swiss militia is to defend their state against invaders, rather than to overthrow their own government, as in the case of the USA. The Swiss state does not place the full burden of that defence on the individual. But Swiss keep guns in their homes out of duty, not right

SC

I understand the reasoning behind the weapons at home idea. What I cannot fathom is why these weapons are basically useless since the citizens have no ammunition with which to actually defend themselves.

They don't have weapons to defend themselves. They have weapons as part of a military force which assembles prior to going into action.

Since they do not have weapons for self defense, perhaps I really don't understand the reasoning of why the weapons are kept in their homes?

If they are at work or out for dinner when the call up occurs and it is a real emergency, the soldier must first return to his home to get his weapon and then go to the armory to get his ammunition.

If the weapons were kept at the armory, they would only have to go from work or dinner to the armory to become real soldiers with guns and everything. Seems like a lot of unnecessary traveling.

Where is the logical Swiss mind in all of this?

Perhaps it dates back to when farming was a more important occupation.

The militiaman can report to his local armoury, which may be a quite discrete building, or, if that is unavailable for whatever reason, can join any other to receive a stock of ammunition It seems quite sensible to me. Perhaps in times of war the ammunition is dispersed to the villages.

While weapons can be kept wrapped and greased indefinitely, I doubt that the same is true of ammunition. In a house fire, an unloaded gun is unlikely to be a significant hazard. Very few children are killed in accidents with guns, other than those that involve ammunition as well. As others have said, guns don't kill people, bullets do

SC