Hacker News Reader

Comment by amarant | Hacker News Reader

What we do in the civilized world is we don't allow everyone to have assault rifles at home. This makes it much easier for police to know whether they can expect a firearm or not. The cases where criminally begotten weapons are less common, and mostly the police have an idea of which areas to expect them (it's basically only organised crime gangs that have weapons other than hunting rifles(which are registered, always))

Also some limits on what weapons police can use, keeps them from getting carried away...

It's not perfect, but I do believe it's better than rolling in with tanks on innocent people's homes!

View on HN

What we do in the civilized world is we don't allow everyone to have assault rifles at home.

Meh. Almost no Americans own assault rifles. The VAST majority of weapons described as "assault rifles" in the media are nothing of the sort. An AR-15 is a civilian weapon that is just a semi-automatic hunting rifle that looks scary to people who are ignorant with regards to firearms and have been brainwashed by the propaganda from the anti-gun groups.

While it is true that you can own an actual assault rifle (defined as a rifle with full-automatic or select-fire capability), it requires a ton of paperwork, a lot of money, and you can't buy any weapon manufactured after 1986 (this was the so-called "Volkmer/McClure Act"). And as best as I can remember, per FBI stats, no legally owned weapon of this type has ever been used in the commission of a violent crime. Or if one has, the number was so small that it rounds to zero.

>An AR-15 is a civilian weapon

You, see, that's a culture problem right there...

A "civilian weapon" should be something more like their fists, or a stick they've picked...

An AR-15 would be very near the end of things to call "a civilian weapon" in a civilized country.

> A "civilian weapon" should be something more like their fists, or a stick they've picked...

https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/onpu1m/conc...

> An AR-15 would be very near the end of things to call "a civilian weapon" in a civilized country.

Why?

Every AR-15 I've ever seen was either a .22 pistol or a 9mm pistol in army rifle drag.

Likely people have a mental association between ARs and crime not because of frequency but severity[1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#Use_in_crime...

The media also has a large role to play in this.

Depends on how you define "violent". There was *one*--a guy used a machine gun to shoot up the *car* belonging to someone he was mad at (I forget the exact situation.) The car was parked and empty at the time, nobody was in danger beyond the inherent danger of firing without an adequate backstop.

Also, it should be noted that all such acts are in violation of the 2A (because the latter says nothing about hunting, sporting, or even self-defense).

> Also, it should be noted that all such acts are in violation of the 2A

Wait, are you saying that hunting/sporting/self-defense are in violation of the second amendment, or am I misunderstanding? Because that's certainly untrue.

There's a difference between certain rights not being enumerated in the Constitution and those rights violating the Constitution.

I misread at first, too, but I believe they mean that gun control laws, particularly ones that cite hunting/sporting/self-defense, are in violation of the 2A.

Ah, that makes way more sense, thanks!

Add "legally" to everything you said. Illegal? Its not so hard.

Dismissing the AR-15 and it's like as a "semi-automatic hunting rifle" is propaganda. The AR-15 type rifles are modeled very accurately towards what is issued to US servicemen and women. These are primarily targeted for hunting, but hunting a different animal than you're contending...

"Modeled after" - yes. But they are not functionally equivalent to the weapons issued to servicemen and women. They are in every sense that matters, functionally equivalent to any generic semi-automatic hunting rifle.

In fact, one could say that many of these media-demonized "assault rifles" are less "powerful" than common hunting rifles, as from a pure ballistic energy standpoint, many common hunting cartridges exceed the power of .223 Remington / 5.56 NATO rounds.

As the owner of a Mini-14--which fires .223 rounds--I think this comment is disingenuous. There are certainly rifles that fire more powerful rounds. But they are typically heavier, more unwieldy, and are bolt action and thus have a lower rate of fire.

Even a stock "hunting rifle"-type Mini-14 can shoot 10+ high powered rounds accurately in a very short length of time. With a pistol grip, an amateur could easily shoot and kill a bunch of people with one, essentially combining the ease of use of a pistol with the power of a long gun.

Common sense dictates that a AR-type rifle with a pistol grip and large capacity magazine is far more deadly for killing people than a technically more powerful .308 rifle.

> ease of use of a pistol with the power of a long gun

Tell me you have near zero experience with pistols or long guns without actually saying it. XD

> common sense

No. You’re inconsistent in your comparison: they make AR pattern rifles in .308. A .308 is more destructive than a .223. The military adopted .223/5.56 for logistic reasons, and you’ll find plenty of debate in the military about the inadequacy of the .223 round both in terms of effective range and penetration. This balancing act is a debate in the military going back ages. I can show you Ordnance Dept. memoranda from over a hundred years ago where this exact balancing act was being debated.

People like the AR pattern (in any caliber) because it’s highly customizable, made of modern durable materials, and is easy to maintain. That the military adopted the pattern for the same reasons shouldn’t come as a surprise. A good design sells itself.

Today, if you want a semi-auto .223 you’d be nuts to buy a mini-14 instead of an AR unless you’re into the mini for aesthetic or collector sentiments (which are valid reasons). But with the mini you’re getting a rifle you’d need to put a lot of custom work into to free float the barrel, you’d always be worried about protecting that wood stock and metal finish, and you’d find limited (by comparison) after-market mods. Also, you’d lose so many options for caliber interchangeability that you get with an AR. Hell, they even make a crossbow upper for the AR. Try turning your mini into a crossbow. :D the AR pattern is the most popular rifle for very good reasons and not because it’s somehow “more deadly” than another semi-auto of the same caliber.

> Tell me you have near zero experience with pistols or long guns without actually saying it. XD

This is a childish comment I would expect in a Reddit thread. I've gone to the range a number of times with my firearm, and more importantly, I've taken friends who've never shot anything before. Shooting a stock Mini-14 is incredibly easy for even a first timer. But, for a first timer, it still requires sitting and resting the barrel on something to get decent control.

A pistol grip makes it much easier to accurately shoot multiple rounds from a semi-automatic, especially free standing. That's been my experience and the experience of those I've brought to the range with me.

And that's where you have completely missed the point. This thread isn't about which gun can beat up which in a fight. It's about whether semi-automatics like the AR-15 enable novices to easily kill large numbers of civilians. The answer is obviously yes.

> A pistol grip makes it much easier to accurately shoot multiple rounds from a semi-automatic

In the military they require you fire from the hip a long gun and hit your target multiple times within a time limit before qualifying. There was no pistol grip.

We're not talking about soldiers with military training here. We're talking about untrained criminals, or people with mental illness, being able to easily shoot and kill a large number of civilians. (i.e. people without body armor, etc.)

Despite the fact that Republicans make fun of the arbitrary nature of what constitutes an "assault rifle"--semi-automatic fire, large capacity removable magazines, pistol grips, etc.--those qualities do make it easier for untrained people to quickly kill a bunch of people.

if they make it easier for untrained people to kill, then how come the military doesn’t use them when training? How come you can still find service weapons without pistol grips? The argument is that pistol grips don’t in fact make it easier it makes it more accurate. We don’t want less accurate, this argument wanting less accuracy was already tried in court and failed muster.

Also if you read the regulations why does it state where the location of the webbing of the thumb need to be if the important part is no pistol grip? In reality they are trying to ban AR pattern rifles, not weapons with pistol grips.

Everything else you mentioned makes the gun easier to operate for both criminals and law abiding citizens. Why do the minority get to ruin things for the exhaustively overwhelming majority when these rifles with these characteristics aren't even the problem?

What military are you talking about? I'm unaware of this being used by the any of the US branches since it's incredibly inaccurate compared to either prone firing, kneeling, or standing.

In fact, the only place I've ever seen people firing from the hip are Schwarzenegger and Stallone movies...

Navy, and the point of the drill is to show you taking a quick shot from the hip is better than delaying to aim. It’s also quite a lot more accurate than one would believe, which is another point of the drill.

The USN? Or some other navy? And actually, a quick shot from the hip is far worse than taking a moment to deliberately aim.

USN doesn't train M16 usage in basic; they use a shotgun instead. They DO train you to fire it from the hip, but firing a shotgun from the hip is very different than firing an auto/semi-automatic rifle from the hip.

Yup, a shotgun. And difficulty hitting your target depends on what your loaded with (slug or shot shell). And you’ll hit your target just the same with a rifle. Will you be as accurate as aiming down the sights? Certainly not. Will you hit your target center mass? Oh yea unless your eye hand coordination is real off. And the original argument was that pistol grips make you more accurate than firing a weapon without. There’s still rifles and other long guns without pistol grips used in service. If this were true of pistol grips then we’d retire these guns out of national security.

It depends on if you have time to aim or not. If you don’t, you’re dead.

Your statements just illustrate an off-hand lack of exposure/knowledge is all.

The mini-14 is patterned off of an actual full-auto military service rifle (with no pistol grip, fwiw), the M14, to sell to the civilian market. This is different than the AR, which was sold to civilians years before the military adopted a similarly patterned service rifle. So if we're talking about the evils of modeling rifles after full-auto military versions, your mini-14 is carrying more moral baggage than the AR. I think the M14 is still in service or was until very recently in the ME, again as a select fire weapon with no pistol grip.

So for small arms, I think the pistol grip matters far less than you're portraying it to in your comments. While valuable for control in a crew-served full auto, it really has two more "pedestrian" advantages in an individual rifle. It allows the receiver to transfer force in a more direct line to the shooter's shoulder and avoid/minimize the structurally weak point of the "dip" in the traditional stock's neck between the receiver and the butt. This makes the rifle far more durable and not coincidentally, cheaper to fashion. It also minimizes physical contact with the rifle along the bore axis which is valuable for aimed shots. You can basically fire the rifle with only the finger on the trigger and a little bit of thumb if that, with no danger of exerting downward or lateral pressure on the stock. Precision rifles in .300 WIN MAG, 338L and higher also use a pistol grip and it's not there because it helps them "spray and pray".

Does it help someone with a semi-auto rifle have more control than not when firing rapidly at moving targets (whether civilians, military people, or ducks)? I don't think someone who's trying to rapid fire with a semi-auto is going to notice one way or another, honestly. Guns designed specifically for off-the-cuff instinctive shooting of multiple moving targets in succession notably have never adopted the pistol grip (think field, double trap, and skeet shotguns).

You move from talking about the advantage of the pistol grip to just asking if semi-autos broadly "enable novices to easily kill large numbers of civilians". Not sure why it matters whether the targets are civilians or not for this purely functional question aside from the obvious appeal to emotion. Semi-autos do allow more rapid fire than other breech or muzzle loader designs, though I've seen people fire lever actions faster than you or I could fire a semi-auto but they definitely aren't novices. Kind of comes back to the question, though - if all semi-autos do this, why single out the AR patterned rifle? You brought up the comparison to the mini-14 suggesting there was something about the AR that enabled novices that wasn't present in your mini. I'm just telling you that that's not the case. To say the pistol grip matters all that much on either of these rifles is a hard speculative argument to make convincingly.

> Not sure why it matters whether the targets are civilians or not

It matters because civilians don't wear body armor. The .223 round has low enough recoil to be easy to control (vs .308, for example) while powerful enough to grievously harm or kill someone (quick Googling shows it has 2-3x more energy than a 9mm).

> I've seen people fire lever actions faster than you or I could fire a semi-auto

Rate of fire is only part of it. There's also the number of rounds the weapon can carry and how quickly you can reload. You're clearly more of an expert than I am, so I'll ask sincerely: Are there any lever action rifles that carry 20 or 30 rounds at a time? How does the time to reload compare to reloading a magazine?

If someone with a lot of professional training wanted to kill a bunch of people, they could probably do it with just about any firearm. And you can still have a mass shooting with "just" a 9mm pistol, as happened at UVA in 2017, where 32 people were killed and 17 more were injured.

But if a random criminal or nutjob wanted to do it, they'd be best served with an AR-type weapon with a few large capacity magazines. That's been the choice for the gunman in the Sandy Hook school shooting (27 killed, 2 injured), the Stoneman Douglas school shooting (17 killed, 17 injured), the Sutherland Springs church shooting (27 killed, 22 injured), etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs_church_shoo...

> It matters because civilians don't wear body armor

Neither do ducks. Your remark about "civilians" was made in a sentence specifically about rate of fire.

> vs .308

Frankly, I'm not really sure where you're headed with the comparison of these rounds - neither are 'hard to control' in a semi-auto. You make too much of this. At the end of the day, both have been deployed broadly by militaries as infantry service weapons. Variants of the same action designs are widely available in both calibers. That the US military is presently using .223 widely should not be considered an endorsement of suitability without an acknowledgement that there are competing interests driving that standard that have nothing to do with terminal ballistics.

The original comment you responded to echoes more articulate concerns made in the shooting community that if gun control interests get traction for bans and further regulation by painting the .223 as somehow unusually deadly (when it's really rather mediocre - dare I say, lower end - insofar as intermediate cartridges are concerned), the arguments for turning their energy to anything over .224 write themselves. For if you restrict .223, why allowing 7.62? It penetrates better, packs more energy at the same ranges, is used by the military, private pyle shot himself with one, etc.". By any measure, .308 is a more high powered round than .223. It's silly to be painting .223 as an unusually high-power round - as they do - and it's not accurate to excuse this is just short-hand for an amalgamation of concerns with action design, rifle color, mag capacity, plastic grips, etc. None of those factors are unique to the caliber.

> lever actions

The statement about a lever action being shot quickly was that it does take an expert to mimic the rates of fire possible on semi-autos. If you agree with this then I'm not sure we need to go searching (or inventing) new things to litigate on the lever action front.

> random nutjob [would be] best served with an AR-type weapon

Back to platform rather than caliber. I'm not sure random nutjob gives a crap about the best weapon. Random nutjob has been shown to research his predecessors, mimic predecessors, and to use what's available -- even when stealing/murdering to get what they need. I'm fairly certain there are some biases in that decision making process for the rifle used, when used. If the Stoner design weren't as popular as it is, I'm quite certain we'd be seeing more mini-14s and SKS/AK platforms being used.

Yup--doing things the way the military does them doesn't make you someone interested in killing. The military goes to a *lot* of effort to design things to do the job well, you can be pretty sure any bit of equipment the military uses will be good at it's job. It may be overengineered for civilian use (for example, the infamous toilet seats. Civilians don't care if their toilets throw splinters or make toxic smoke when they take battle damage, bu if it's going on a combat aircraft the military does care), but it won't be bad at it's job.

But they are typically heavier, more unwieldy, and are bolt action and thus have a lower rate of fire.

It's a continuum though. Go up in ballistic power from .223 only a little bit and you still find plenty of lightweight semi-auto rifles. And you can certainly find semi-autos all the way to at least 7mm Remington Mangum.

With a pistol grip, an amateur could easily shoot and kill a bunch of people with one,

Personally I have a lot of doubt about how much difference a pistol grip actually makes, but I could be convinced if anybody has researched that and has some evidence.

with a pistol grip and large capacity magazine is far more deadly for killing

A skilled operator can change magazines so quickly that I feel like magazine capacity is almost a moot point. To me the real distinction is binary "has a detachable magazine" or "does not have a detachable magazine."

Of course, I suppose in the context of how much damage an unskilled operator can do, then yes, a larger magazine is more "deadly" in a sense. But large magazines are not specific to the AR series. Even if the original manufacturer doesn't provide them, there's little reason in principle that someone else can't manufacture a higher capacity magazine for any rifle that uses detachable magazines.

> mag cap is moot

The kid in CT that murdered his own mother, stole her guns and killed all the students was dropping half-full mags and reloading. IIRC, law enforcement interpreted this behavior as mirroring his FPS “training”. That would seem to indicate capacity didn’t matter as much as simply having a detachable mag. The guy that shot up that Batman theater in CO or wherever brought in a 50 or 100 rnd drum mag (IIRC) and had it jam on him (as they do).

Exactly. We have a total of two mass shootings where magazine capacity had *any* relevance. One guy got jumped while "reloading"--but since his second magazine was damaged and wouldn't feed that's not really of much relevance--from a practical standpoint he was out of ammo. If he had smaller mags that might actually have increased the death toll because a dinged mag would have removed less of his ammo.

The second is the Las Vegas case--and in that case he had a ton of guns, mostly he was switching guns rather than reloading.

Detachable or not is the only meaningful distinction.

Well, other than having selective fire modes, they're functionally identical. And considering their rate of fire, and that full-auto is discouraged in most militaries, yes, I consider them equivalent.

And "generic semi-automatic hunting rifle" has become the AR-15. It used to be a bolt action, or maybe an Mini-14. But the whole benefit (and the social drawback) of widespread ownership of AR-15s is the high rate of fire, and the magazine capacity.

Comparing it to a bolt-action .308 isn't the point.

It’s a question of function which can be objectively determined. Guns are a very old technology and whilst elegant, are mechanically quite simple. An AR-15 pattern action is a semi-auto. One trigger pull, one round fired. Functionally identical to any other semi auto rifle. AR-patterned rifles are absolutely used for hunting a wide variety of game.

That it’s largely made of aluminum and composites means it’s lighter than steel and wood, and also more weather resistant. People like modern materials for good reason.

The AR design (itself over 60 yrs old) is so popular because it is highly modular (customizable) and can be accurized to a high degree. And it should be pointed out that the military rejected the pattern design before adopting it.

So what is this “modeled after” quality you’re talking about? Firearm action designs are all quite old, and have been used by both the military and civilians since firearms were a thing. There was a time in the late 19th century when firearms designs in the hands of civilians outclassed (in rate of fire) the service weapons of the US Army. Gas systems on weapons are quite old, back to the 19th century again. What you probably think of as the stereotypical “hunting rifle” would fit the same profile as a military sniper rifle in service today (e.g. Remington model 700). Are hunting rifles “modeled after” sniper rifles? Or the other way around? It really is an artificial debate.

The hypocrisy (committed for purely political reasons, no doubt) is that in some of the states the semi-auto AR-15 and AK-47 have been banned while, say, Mini-14, Tavor, and SKS, which have exactly the same capabilities, have not - a decision made simply based on the "looks."

I don't think it's hypocrisy so much as ignorance. Most people recognize an AR-15 and Kalashnikov. But few now the origins of the Mini-14 nor the other weapons you've described.

> What we do in the civilized world is we don't allow everyone to have assault rifles at home.

It's not so uncommon to have a assault rifle from the military or other guns at home in Switzerland and their numbers are way lower than in the US [0]. It's not about having guns, it's about proper training and not giving weapons to psychologically unstable people.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...

Swiss military arms can be kept at home if they get a permit, but:

* They are not allowed to possess ammunition unless in special militias. Any ammunition bought or issued at ranges cannot be taken off premises.

* Purchasing ammunition for permitted private arms requires the same checks as buying the weapons, including permits, ID and a recent criminal record check.

* There are strict controls around storing and transporting weapons.

* There is no right to concealed carry.

* There are no stand your ground laws.

I'm very happy when Americans cite Switzerland in terms that equate it to the US because that implies a regulatory system like that in Switzerland would be appropriate to the US. That's a great idea.

You are totally allowed to store ammo at your house.

The ones that you get when you go do your mandatory shooting rehearsal have to be completly expanded but you can just buy a case and bring it back home.

With some friends we were going to the shooting range quite a lot and bought like 1000 rounds and stored them at one of my friend's place to take advantage of a bulk discount.

I was talking specifically about the issued military arms and ammunition in that comment, which is what the comment I responded to was about. I made a separate comment later about privately owned arms and ammunition but I could have been a lot clearer. Botched in the edit.

Hi, Switzerland here. I wish US americans would stop citing Switzerland as example for assault weapons allowed in Europe. It's one thing being allowed to keep the rifle at home, and an entire other thing being allowed to actually use it. The only reason Swiss are allowed the rifle at home is to be able to intervene quickly in case of war. And it comes with a lot of hooks so definitely no, police will not expect you being armed - not at home and even less on the streets.

Yes, you are right, the military rifle is only for the case of war or the mandatory military training. It's also wrong to believe that there is a military grade gun in every Swiss household, most people leave their rifle at the military or in one central weapons depot run by the state. I'm not sure, but aren't you allowed to shoot it at a gun range? (as Sportschütze) A friend from Zürich was talking about this topic, but my memories about this conversation are a little blurry.

From what I've heard it's way easier to get a gun permit in Switzerland than here in Germany and the Swiss are allowed to have guns you can't even dream of here (I'm talking about stuff like the semi auto H&K MP5, AR-15/AK derivates, etc.).

I lived near Zurich in the early 90s (Canadian) and would often see people headed off to military service on the normal, commuter trains with an assault rifle as part of their kit. I assumed everyone just took them home with them when their regular service was done and took them back when they revisited it next year. Most of my colleagues that did military service would go for a couple of weeks a year and loved it (you serve with people from the area you grew up in, I think, and they looked forward to seeing their buddies again, drinking some beer, etc.).

War with whom? IIRC Switzerland are traditionally neutral. Serious question.

> … was especially furious when he saw that German equipment was used to shoot down German pilots. He said they would respond "in another manner".[17] On 20 June 1940 …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_the_World_W...

It could be some neighboring state gets ideas... last time it happened was not even that far back.

It's a lot easier for the "other guys" to justify not occupying a country that's equipped to put up a good insurrection.

Counterpoint: Afghanistan.

It's become a rite of passage for empires to try and fail there. Next up, China?

anybody who tries to invade. the swiss aren't neutral to invasions of the homeland.

zee germans

Downvotes? Really? I was asking seriously, I do not know the swiss culture and I wanted to know the answer. Silly me for wanting to learn something.

Yes, but as a Swiss civilian you're allowed to own a great number of semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and standard capacity (20, 30, or more rounds) magazines as a private citizen, provided that you go through a licensing processes which isn't very tedious or expensive. The whole "Swiss men all have their service weapon in the house" thing is conflation/misunderstanding/ignorance, but in many ways Swiss firearms law is not terribly different from US firearms law in terms of what you're allowed to own and in some cases it's even less restrictive (CH doesn't care about barrel length on shoulder-fired weapons, for example). They key different is the existence of a license system.

The main thing that sets the US apart from other countries is not that civilians can own AR15s or similar weapons, it's that US law for the most part gives any adult the legal right to purchase and own firearms by default, provided that they can pass a background check. The United States and Yemen are basically the only countries that use this system. Basically every other country has some sort of tiered licensing system for firearms ownership, with varying levels of strictness. And as it happens, Switzerland is pretty unrestrictive in this regard. The Swiss "Firearms acquisition permit" looks essentially equivalent to the United State's "Form 4473" which is required for the majority of firearms transactions.

https://www.ch.ch/en/acquiring-firearm/

To clarify, are Swiss citizens allowed to use the assault rifles they keep at home to defend themselves or their property against criminals?

Not a lawyer, but as far as I remember in Swiss law a criminals live is valued higher than your property. There would have to be an immediate threat for someones live for it to be even considered justified self defense. E.g. in a armed robbery you are expected to hand over the valuables they ask for before defending yourself with force.

Edit: assuming we are talking about shooting the criminal not just use the weapon as a deterrent. No idea what happens in that case, but I reckon either or both civil and military justice are going to have a word with you.

To clarify a bit. By law, a human life is the "good" of highest value above everything else. Just committing a crime does not exempt you from that principle. Wether self defense was justified is judged by whether the level of force used was an appropriate reaction to the threat at hand. So not sure whether using a military weapon (assuming not going full automatic) vs. private actually matters at all, or if that would just be a separate violation.

It's a separate violation because you'd be breaking then also the military laws and regulations (see other comments why)

The problem with this is that you are trusting that the robber is only going to rob. Unfortunately, all too many shoot their victims anyway because the take wasn't as much as they expected or other reasons.

Calm, reasonable robber--of course you hand it over. Crazy methhead, if he makes a mistake and gives you an opportunity you very well might be better off taking it. America doesn't try to judge the situation in advance.

I don't disagree when looking at it in isolation. But my comment was specifically to Switzerland which has according to the department of statistics around 30 cases of robbery per year which basically never lead to physical harm. It is just not something you worry about in your day to day live.

Drug addicts usually want to be left alone and won't bother you. Exception being people chuck full of cocaine and alcohol in and arounds nightclubs frustrated about not getting layed.

The problem is being tackled the other way around by trying to keep poverty, inequality and thus acts of desperation low.

From an ealier comment:

> They are not allowed to possess ammunition unless in special militias. Any ammunition bought or issued at ranges cannot be taken off premises.

So potentially yes, but only if you mean using the gun as a club.

The earlier comment is conflating general Swiss firearms ownership with the service-weapon take home system in use with Swiss military conscripts.

Swiss gun owners are allowed to buy, own, and use ammunition. They may also use a privately-owned firearm in self-defense situationally, but the legal justification for use of deadly force in Switzerland will obviously be more stringent than it would be in the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer...

No.

Thanks!

So there is a big difference to gun ownership in the US (and elsewhere).

It also varies dramatically between US states. If you shot a burglar in your house with an AR-15 in Florida the local DA might give you a medal. In New Jersey they would arrest you just for having the AR-15, and then likely charge you with murder.

(I'm not commenting on the morality of either state's laws; just pointing out that US states differ widely on gun laws.)

[Edit: I originally said California instead of New Jersey. NJ's laws are stricter but it appears that the vast majority of states allow much leeway when in your own home, so I might even be wrong about NJ.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

]

FWIW, even before the advent of the recent wave of "stand your ground" laws, there was an older legal principle, that was very widely held, called "castle doctrine"[1] which comes into play in terms of killing a home intruder. The details still vary from state to state, but AIUI, many locales hold to a form of castle doctrine such that if you kill an invader who is actually in your home, you would be unlikely to be charged with murder.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

That would prove very handy against vampires. Could they resist an invite to your home?

> It's not about having guns, it's about proper training and not giving weapons to psychologically unstable people.

This, so much.

In Switzerland there is a culture of responsibility about shooting rifles and guns. If you are gun aficionado, you are a member of the local "Schutzenverein" (Markmen's club). If you're not, people will get very suspicious. For the most part, these Schutzenvereins take care that their members are properly trained. And even though there are very young markmen (and markwoman), as young as 12 years old - they are introduced to a long and continued tradition of gun handling; they are taught that guns are weapons and not toys.

And by the way; every little village has it's own Schutzenverein.

I wish something like this existed in the USA.

it did for me- it was called the boy scouts. We learned to maintain and shoot 22s (I was 12 at the time). Everybody in my family who has guns is responsible about them.

There is a whole responsible gun culture in the US which is overshadowed by a smaller number of extremely irresponsible people.

I'm of mixed opinions on this. I really believe we have a culture problem in the US of glorifying criminality and an eroding of the social (not govt) institutions that worked as "glue" for setting expectations of appropriate, socialized behavior.

BUT.. I also think these informal social systems can behave as classist and other discriminatory mechanisms. In the US, gun control is particularly tainted with its racist past in post (Civil) war years.

I think of Switzerland as an incredibly expensive place to live, a land of the haves and have-nots. My perception is that part of the luxury they enjoy by being a comparatively stable and peaceful society is a product of them being relatively small, culturally close-knit, having a "my-way-or-the-highway (to Italy)" kind of attitude. Great stuff, but I think it probably also comes at a cost that would be hard to endure if you weren't somebody who "fit in".

I could be very wrong about evaluating the risks vs. rewards. To be honest, almost all the gun enthusiasts in the US I know belong to some sort of organization, either members of a shooting club/range, organization, etc. We tend to regard those who aren't as merely being "leechers" off the contributions we make to the community, facilities, and political action, but not suspiciously as criminals. If I'm honest, my suspicion of you as a gun owner is raised by your behavior in gun handling (recklessness) and your demeanor [appearance + behavior + language + (dis)respectfulness to others (if all mimic criminal stereotypes)]. This is a form of discrimination that also has classist and racist risks but is a bit less institutionalized perhaps than gates to formal club membership.

It's silly to me that gun control groups in the US have tried to rebrand themselves as gun safety organizations, when they neither advocate or support any gun safety training in the US. They are the equivalent of a an "abstinence-only" sex educator living in Gomorrah.

I was taught actual gun safety at a young age, the responsibility inherent in handling and owning firearms, and the self discipline necessary to use them effectively. I am biased by the tangible and intangible rewards I've gained from that, so tend to think others could benefit from it as well.

Boy Scouts, 4-H, Lion's Club, and other shooting clubs are out there and very active. I shot in all three organizations competitively as well as the local smallbore club. There were and are Postal Matches as well, where they send you a target and you mail it back in after having shot it (there is a degree of honor system going on there, which I never saw abused).

Many towns in the US have their versions of Schuetzenvereins. Where I am in California (!), several surrounding towns have their own clubs with ranges, as well as one facility that is essential county-wide. The latter range has hosted national championships in a variety of shooting sports. My cousins took hunter safety classes at a public high school in Louisiana. The local public high school has an indoor range, but sadly it's just used for storage, now.

These things exist and are used in large numbers, but the press is actively uninterested in them because they near-universally lack blood or excitement. Just people safely enjoying shooting sports, preparing for hunting, or putting holes in paper for fun.

Yeah, but these guns are registered too, so police will know what they have to expect.

On the off chance that that is pointed at US Americans: assault rifles are pretty rare, and are strictly controlled and registered in the US. Depending how much of the group "machine gun" you also describe as "assault rifle", they get even rarer, especially considering that any automatic weapons made since 1986 are outright illegal for all but police.

>but I do believe it's better than rolling in with tanks on innocent people's homes!

I don't think you realize the irony of bringing tanks into the discussion. When you say tanks and gun control in the same sentence here's what most Americans think of.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...

https://i.redd.it/o97mufqi8jo01.jpg

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...

(NSFL) https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...

And that's probably not something you want to bring up if you're in favor of gun control.

That is neither here nor there. Assault rifles did not lead to this man’s death. They have nothing essentially to do with what transpired. The problem is that someone filed a false report. That’s where you need to focus. Filing false reports is what should be severely punished.

I understand this works elsewhere, but unfortunately in America we have a long history with firearms. Growing up in a rural area it’s normal, times have changed, AR are seen as normal in places where it was a shotgun or a ruger in the past.

Point is most discussions related to strict control on these rifles to me is mostly pointless, the genie is out the bottle if talking about curbing assault rifles they have been flooding the streets for over a decade at this point.

Me personally I also believe these things make America America, problems and all. It may seem like a weird worldview to some, but some love the fact America has this wild edge to it, it’s not perfect but if you’re living right and being responsible it mostly works out fine. We have old people like everyone else. Making our country work like other counties isn’t as common as looking at what other states are doing in my experience. And states have their own micro cultures that are more or less permissive of this stuff, again that’s what many love about the US

> but some love the fact America has this wild edge to it, it’s not perfect but if you’re living right and being responsible it mostly works out fine

There’s nothing quirky, loveable or wild about school massacres and an aggressive, poorly trained but hyper-militarised police force.

Your “oh shucks, we can’t help it because… well that’s just who we are!” message exacerbates the false notion that positive, widespread societal change isn’t impossible. Which benefits certain people, not least of all gun manufacturers flooding the country with high-powered weaponry.

I don't see people dying to get out of America. But there are plenty dying to get in, so perhaps there's something America has that outweighs whatever you think is going on.

By the way, you probably think far more people are killed by "assault rifles" than really are, judging by your hyperbole. In 2019[1], there were...364. By contrast, there were 328 million people in the US in 2019[2]. That means 0.000001% of the population, which, while tragic, is statistically insignificant.

[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[2] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/popest-n...

(bonus: breakdown of murders by state and by weapon: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...)

Guns are too prolific and necessary. They prevent thousands of crimes every day. In addition to defense, we also use them as pest control for hogs and dear and other things and we are currently not killing enough boars, it's a growing problem, but I digress.

Due to enforcement issues any outright ban will just prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves. There are certain cities that have failed in the last 10 years resulting in police response times over an hour. In the case of Detroit violence was consistently rising during that time until several perps were shot committing a crime and it was highly televised and then violence receded.

Guns empower women to defend themselves against people who could otherwise physically dominate them, as well as other minority groups who may face violence in their neighborhood. There are lots of countries with armed civilians that don't have school shootings.

There has also yet to be a reasonable technical classification that can identify a so called "assault" rifle from other rifle platforms.

Government tyranny is also real and legitimate threat to the population. Especially today with an ever invasive fed surveillance program, secret courts, and countries that are bypassing the bill of rights by offloading the violations to its allies. Oh and they are still discussing the legality of which and will seem to be in a perpetual legal battle over it. Many people argue you can't fight tanks/drones ect.. with guns but history Hong Kong is an excellent example and they aren't even armed, imagine if they were. They are willing to die for the cause and they would have the opportunity to escalate it to violence. The regime would have likely had to back down.

School shootings are about mental health and bullying and the relationships they have with adults around them. It's easy to make a bomb. If people want to inflict mass violence they will, we need to fix the root issues.

>There’s nothing quirky, loveable or wild about school massacres and an aggressive, poorly trained but hyper-militarised police force.

Neither of which has anything to do with the second Amendment, and ready, free access to firearms. The school shootings have much more to do with our criminally underfunded education system, and so overfunded law enforcement with terrible perverse incentives, warrior instead of Guardian ethos, and the complete dissolution of all semblance of high-trust culture through incubated multi-decade corruption.

Solve the right problems first. When teachers can't even count on specialists to help with the hard cases in schools, and social workers are stretched as thin as they are, that's what sews the field with the seeds of desperation or anger driven slaughter.

And don't think it'd not happen without the firearms. Once you go over the edge, you find a way.

> There’s nothing quirky, loveable or wild about school massacres

This is the result of the negative consequences of a given freedom, and you could say similar things for any given right. This isn't isolated to just the Second Amendment, though, it's true of all rights.

First Amendment: "There's nothing quirky, loveable, or wild about hate speech or anti-Semitism".

Third Amendment: "There's nothing quirky, loveable, or wild about keeping the National Guard from being able to quickly and efficiently respond to medical emergencies in areas far from bases."

Fourth Amendment: "There's nothing quirky, loveable, or wild about letting murderers go free just because of bureaucracy"

I imagine most people would agree with the above statements. I imagine most people would also agree that these rights are all super valuable and provide lots of utility. The "Wild West" aspect of America that most people find appealing, though, is the view that America tends to weight the individual rights side of the balance really heavily (with the tacit acknowledgement that the negative side of things is also bound to be bigger as well).

> and an aggressive, poorly trained but hyper-militarised police force.

No contest here, such police forces are a problem and I think lots of second-amendment advocates would agree.

Almost no individual owns an assault rifle in the US. It is nearly impossible to do so legally.

yes, extremely expensive also: https://dealernfa.com/product-category/machine-guns/all-tran...

kalashnikov for $30k, as example. registered lower for m16 cost $20k at least.

> it's basically only organised crime gangs that have weapons other than hunting rifles

Do you really believe this? Any evidence?

Here’s some to the counter, your average anti gun dem buying an AR-15: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2021/anti-...

Do you also understand your average hunting rifle is a lot more powerful than these supposed other weapons? Here’s .223 on left and 30-06 (aka “hunting rifle”) on right: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2a-YzMNCllQ/UPd-W05xMaI/AAAAAAAAAW...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com