Why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world

[Firefly]

... really?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Firefly

... really?

Well if you just said citizen, sure, but, you said armed citizen specifically, so apparently there's something special about the fact that they're armed. In fact, you also specifically said "US citizen", again as if there's a difference. So, if they wern't US, you'd fire on citizens, armed or unarmed sooner? Otherwise you might as well just have said "citizen".

Just clearing things up here to see if there's actually a point made that has to do with them bearing arms or their "right" to bear arms in the US. >.> Because if you just wouldn't fire on a (US) rebel, then the point is kinda moot if they got weapons or not.

[Figment]

Some fun facts on gun crime:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state

http://portent.org/cnns-interactive-...gun-crime-map/

EDIT: note that both wealthy and non-wealthy areas with strict gun laws are low in gun crime (including Chili). Meanwhile areas with high gun crime, are either a warzone or have high drug related crime, but the most common factor is that wealth is low (Russia, Mexico) and guns are easy to get by. While the medium nations are often ex-war zones (former Yugoslavia) where guns are still present and nations with a big disparity in wealth, but a large populace that is wealthier (for instance the US, unlike say Columbia, where only the elite is wealthy). Basically, a larger wealthier populace reduces average gun crime.

So as a conclusion... the best way to reduce gun crime, is to remove guns. To remove a lot of 'need' for crime itself, the state of living needs to be improved.

[Firefly]

I'm honestly not trying to be rude but if I wouldn't fire on an armed citizen, what makes you think, by any stretch of rational logic, that I'd fire on an unarmed citizen?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Firefly

I'm honestly not trying to be rude but if I wouldn't fire on an armed citizen, what makes you think, by any stretch of rational logic, that I'd fire on an unarmed citizen?

I know that, that's the point: you apparently wouldn't fire anyway, armed or not. I wanted to make sure you realised it.

Was checking if you'd realise that it's far less likely government troops would fire at unarmed citizens that would be protesting. So "protection from the government" is a bad reason to carry arms. Your personal ethics would prevent you from firing either way, potentially more so if they are unarmed. So exactly who do they need to fire guns at, if not the soldiers or police who refuse to fire?

Do the civilians need to fire at the clerics in office buildings? Do the civilians have the right to bear guillotines to simply publically execute people anyone related to the government of the time? Do they have the right to just fire at anyone they don't like at that point? Does the right to bear arms come with the right to have lynching parties of random or specific groups of individuals, including those supporting or working for the government?


In fact, going back to the situation of an armed civilian (mob) which you refuse to fire at. If an armed mob or just a protesting mob comes down the street. How close do you think they'd be allowed to get to a group of soldiers before ONE of them (not you) gets nervous enough to open fire or even an officer is ordered to open fire?

I'm quite sure the non-gun toting group would not be considered as physically threatening and would be allowed to even get to what, arms length? (See random protests). A gun toting group that would not be allowed to come as close, would probably largely wear disguises and look like anarchists. Which means it wouldn't be as personal targets and a non-personal target is easier to fire at than someone at bayonet range, even more so if they look don't look particualrly innocent. Furthermore, since a portion of this crowd would definitely use the opportunity to riot and loot and such a group would definitely be kept at distance with tear gas, water canons, rubber bullets, if not actual weapons fire etc.

Crowd mentality for people with arms is also far more dangerous and can have far more serious consequences.




So what I'm basically asking is, what is your point?

[Firefly]

My point should have been clear - I, as a professional soldier, would not engage US citizens on US soil unless they chose to fire the first shot, at which point I am obligated to defend myself and the troops who serve under or alongside me. THE END.

As for the other stuff you posted: "How close do you think they'd be allowed to get to a group of soldiers before ONE of them (not you) gets nervous enough to open fire or even an officer is ordered to open fire?"

Very simple. Rules of Engagement dictate what American soldiers are authorised to do. A good leader keeps his or her calm and keeps order and discipline. Code of conduct aside, let me tell you what I know from personal experience.

I stood in a crowd of thousands of angry Iraqis as a platoon sergeant. Between me and my protectee was a very thin wall of armed and probably frightened soldiers. A sum total of about eighteen of them, none of them past their mid-20s. That was what separated us from very pissed off locals, some of whom were visibly armed, many of whom could have very well been concealing a weapon. I'll tell you something else - this crowd was on pretty much all sides, just outside of arm's reach. In that situation, when the screaming angry mob of righteously indignant people in their own land are facing down a handful of armed invaders, what would YOU do?

I know what I did. I stayed on my platoon's squirrel net. I kept my troops calm. I kept my protectee in arm's reach. I kept my finger out of the trigger well but my weapon was locked and loaded. I talked my guys through it even though at any moment one of those pissed-off Iraqis could have done more than scream at us. We all walked off that mission safe and sound, with a grateful protectee. Not a shot was fired.

So what would I do when faced with a pissed-off crowd of Americans on our own soil? Keep my calm and engage only when that was the absolute last option - meaning, when the other side has chosen violence. I'm not a policeman, I'm a soldier. I take pride in my profession. My mission isn't to serve and protect the public trust or enforce the laws - it's to defend the nation and it's people. Understood?

[Figment]

Quite, I am however wondering how this is related to the topic. No offense meant btw, great respect for people serving under such stressful conditions.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Firefly

I as an American soldier would not have in the past, nor in the present, nor in the future, ever fired upon an armed United States citizen in the event that the civilian populace ever decided to revolt given the current political climate. REGARDLESS of what side I was on. This has been discussed behind closed doors amongst friends during a drinking session in the barracks more times than I can count, on more installations than I can count.

And in truth, I would join the rebellion if I felt that it was justified.

Thank you.

Warborn seems to have this misconception that the US Military is full of mindless drones that serve its government master.

The reality is soldiers = citizens.

When you take guns away from the citizens the US Government has nothing to fear anymore.

And if you think a revolt/revolution wouldn't stand a chance Warborn....well...quite frankly you sound like the British circa 1770. Look what happened to them. They had superior numbers/firepower and they got stomped by men with an ideal. Twice.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

And if you think a revolt/revolution wouldn't stand a chance Warborn....well...quite frankly you sound like the British circa 1770. Look what happened to them. They had superior numbers/firepower and they got stomped by men with an ideal. Twice.

You do know that America had outside assistance in winning that war right (that wasn't obviously everything, but it helped a lot more then people like to give credit for)?

There is no guarantee that American citizens would get that kind of outside help, against it's own legitimate government. I doubt another country would attempt to smuggle us arms/ammunition etc without good cause.

And the majority of american soldiers won't rebel against the government unless the rebels have a legitimate case to do so.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

The reality is soldiers = citizens.

When you take guns away from the citizens the US Government has nothing to fear anymore.

...did you just state that the US government has no army to oppress citizens with, since they ARE citizens and would not fire on them?

Thank you for argueing that the US citizens do not need firearms to take on the US army.

And if you think a revolt/revolution wouldn't stand a chance Warborn....well...quite frankly you sound like the British circa 1770. Look what happened to them. They had superior numbers/firepower and they got stomped by men with an ideal. Twice.

That's not true... The UK army in the Americas was very small and mostly consisted of loyalist militia. They also had to contend with a naval and potential invasion of the UK by three major and wealthy continental powers: Spain, France and the Netherlands.

[ItsTheSheppy]

It's interesting to me how debates about gun control always devolve into wild conspiracy theories that make everyone look like lunatics. It doesn't inspire confidence in me that people are 'responsible gun owners' if, when pressed, start raving about fending off tanks with a 9mm.

Crime is a byproduct of poverty.

Poverty is a product of social inequality, lackadaisical economy, and shoddy education.

There is a significant lack of compelling evidence that widespread gun ownership is a crime deterrent.

I'm amazed the argument progresses further than that.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Figment

...did you just state that the US government has no army to oppress citizens with, since they ARE citizens and would not fire on them?

Thank you for argueing that the US citizens do not need firearms to take on the US army.



That's not true... The UK army in the Americas was very small and mostly consisted of loyalist militia. They also had to contend with a naval and potential invasion of the UK by three major and wealthy continental powers: Spain, France and the Netherlands.

I find it interesting that you took away from what I said that I was saying we don't need guns.

Debating with you people on here is like beating your head against a brick wall. A very liberal, self righteous, and YOUNG brick wall.

What I mean is, Warborn said that an armed US population would not make a dent in case of a revolution because the US Government would have troops at their command to squash a rebellion.

I simply TRIED to state that the US Military isn't a nameless, faceless group of robots that simply kill on command, and that if ordered to kill civvies...they would take umbrage with it and possibly join the rebellion in direct response to that order.

Don't read too much into things guy.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Effective

You do know that America had outside assistance in winning that war right (that wasn't obviously everything, but it helped a lot more then people like to give credit for)?

There is no guarantee that American citizens would get that kind of outside help, against it's own legitimate government. I doubt another country would attempt to smuggle us arms/ammunition etc without good cause.

And the majority of american soldiers won't rebel against the government unless the rebels have a legitimate case to do so.

I'm very well aware that we had French and Spanish assistance during the war. They had a vested interest in kicking the shit out of England.

But I think you're wrong about the soldiers not joining the cause.

I've had many conversations with soldier friends of mine over a beer and almost all of them say "Fuck the government if it came to a rebellion."

Admittedly though...they were drunk.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

I find it interesting that you took away from what I said that I was saying we don't need guns.

Debating with you people on here is like beating your head against a brick wall. A very liberal, self righteous, and YOUNG brick wall.

What I mean is, Warborn said that an armed US population would not make a dent in case of a revolution because the US Government would have troops at their command to squash a rebellion.

I simply TRIED to state that the US Military isn't a nameless, faceless group of robots that simply kill on command, and that if ordered to kill civvies...they would take umbrage with it and possibly join the rebellion in direct response to that order.

Don't read too much into things guy.

And that is exactly one reason why I am stating you don't need guns to protect against the government. Who are you going to use these guns on, if not the opposition with guns (ie. the military)?

So the point is, a protest without guns or violence is equally effective, if not more because nobody is directly threatened and won't have any need or means to oppress using violence in a civilized state where the masses, including the military are somewhat educated and free thinking.


Again, WHERE EXACTLY is the need for guns to protect against the government coming from? Nobody here seems to have an answer for it. Therefore I can but conclude that the whole "protect against the government" argument is complete and utter bull.


Again, I would also like to know how these people would respond in case of a sub group (whether ethnic, religious or political) that wanted to see certain legislation undone or done that you personally don't agree with.



The best answer to this is not guns, but a proper representative election system of the wishes of the populace in all its facets. Which means you have to get rid of the incredibly unrepresentative duality you got now with just two parties having a chance at domination.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

Warborn seems to have this misconception that the US Military is full of mindless drones that serve its government master.

The US military is full of people who don't want to die. If you put them between a state capitol, or the White House, and a mob of armed civilians intent on insurrection, what do you figure the outcome will be? That the soldiers will allow themselves to be shot and killed? Or that once one idiot uses the weapons bequeathed upon them by the Second Amendment that the soldiers they're shooting at will fight back, if not out of duty then out of self-preservation?

Now-a-days, there is no chance at all citizens of modern nations would benefit from attempting armed insurrection. The gap between what civilians have and what the military has is too vast.