Demographics play a part yes, but regarding the case of switzerland, i think its their gun culture, namely the fact that almost all gun holders are militia. lacking a military, switzerland has a compulsory militia system in which all men are trained.

What is the difference between a high caliber pistol or a semi automatic pistol with 10 or 15+ rounds in the magazine with a high powered rifle/semi automatic machine guns?

I guess a gun could have scared them off, but if you carry, they get to carry too. So I obviously pose the question to you, would to point a gun at a mob of 20 men if there was the possibility they could point a gun right back at you?

No, police can do something called "arrests" im not sure if you know about this but it results in longer term consequences for those being arrested.

Also the difference per 100 000 between US and India is the entirety of Australia's or the UK's. That is a significant difference

Thats what I said in the last para. They are probably more trained and educated when it comes to gun safety/usage. I have a feeling most in the US have this sense of pride in owning automatic weapons, but lack proper discipline while handling the same. I know there are disciplined folks out there, but you can never be sure. Its exactly why I dont support assault rifles, shotguns, machine guns etc that are supposed to be used in war.

But you keep going on about how awesome switzerland is, they get to keep assault rifles, machine guns, military weapons.



You could regulate caliber too. I am no gun expert, but there must be a minimum caliber that maybe able to help people protect themselves, but at the same time wont cause a "militarised" society, so to speak. BTW assault rifles can fire automatic, 30 round magazines that travel greater distances and do more damage. A handgun is not that capable. If there was no difference people would use only handguns in wars, atleast they are smaller and lighter

No such thing, if you want a caliber capable of protecting yourself from other people, you want a caliber capable of causing grievous bodily harm to others. 15 rounds in a semi auto pistol with hollow points. no reloading after each shot. caliber can be small but still incredibly deadly, arguably a small hollow point is worse than a slightly larger non hollow point. A handgun doesnt have range and accuracy compared to a rifle, but they are still plenty capable in dealing damage in... lets say an enclosed theatre.

Hence why I said, regulate who you give guns to. For example, to own a gun, you need to be educated to a certain level and should be of sound mental health. You should have no criminal background. You need to go to a training facility (basically gun ranges) which are already available in the US everywhere, and learn to shoot, learn about safety etc., We could make them take written tests for ensuring they know about gun safety, and we could have practical tests to see if they know how to handle guns, clean them etc., This sounds long winded, but we do this for Driver's licenses. We could also regulate the number of guns per person, at ONE handgun, of a caliber of his/her choice.

So in that particular case, the goons being mostly illiterates, wouldnt have had a gun on them.

What makes you think the goons are illiterates? This is india, not a developing nation. What makes the licensing so high and mighty that it would exclude them but not the girl?

They did arrest them. Am asking, how does it change anything for the girl? It doesnt. She was molested and humiliated. The very incident could have been avoided is my point. If there was a gun in the picture.

It changes nothing for the girl. If one of the goons had a gun in his hand and was forcing her to cooperate at gunpoint, how does it change anything for the girl? If i were standing behind you in line at a shopping centre and stab you in the gut with a spork and you pull a gun on me and shoot me, how does it change anything? the fact you get to shoot me? that spork i stabbed you with was sharpened and slightly rusty. Your gun means nothing. All that matters is the response times of emergency services. such a pedantic point on your behalf.

Yeah, but Australia is one of those countries at the very top when it comes to living standards. And population wise Australia is like 55 times smaller than India, while being twice as big. So your population density itself is extremely low. I know there are concentrations of populations, STILL.

You raise a total of: 0 valid points in that paragraph. Its per 100 000. What you state is all conjecture and fluff (other than the first couple words), try again.

But you keep going on about how awesome switzerland is, they get to keep assault rifles, machine guns, military weapons.

No such thing, if you want a caliber capable of protecting yourself from other people, you want a caliber capable of causing grievous bodily harm to others. 15 rounds in a semi auto pistol with hollow points. no reloading after each shot. caliber can be small but still incredibly deadly, arguably a small hollow point is worse than a slightly larger non hollow point. A handgun doesnt have range and accuracy compared to a rifle, but they are still plenty capable in dealing damage in... lets say an enclosed theatre.

What makes you think the goons are illiterates? This is india, not a developing nation. What makes the licensing so high and mighty that it would exclude them but not the girl?

It changes nothing for the girl. If one of the goons had a gun in his hand and was forcing her to cooperate at gunpoint, how does it change anything for the girl? If i were standing behind you in line at a shopping centre and stab you in the gut with a spork and you pull a gun on me and shoot me, how does it change anything? the fact you get to shoot me? that spork i stabbed you with was sharpened and slightly rusty. Your gun means nothing. All that matters is the response times of emergency services. such a pedantic point on your behalf.

You raise a total of: 0 valid points in that paragraph. Its per 100 000. What you state is all conjecture and fluff (other than the first couple words), try again.

I didnt say they were awesome or whatever lol. I meant to point out that guns dont have a causal relationship with crime. Meaning Guns dont CAUSE crime.

Thats like saying mafioso dont cause crime in their retirement towns, that is, towns that mafioso like to retire in. The towns have low crime rates as all gangs and trouble makers are scared off, the streets are incredibly safe since the mafia's family (children, parents) walk amongst them and the crime commited there is low since most of the mafia there are merely connections and not doing anything particularly illegal. The town basically becomes a safe haven due the the mafia's influence.

You cant point to an outlier and claim it represents the whole. Guns are heavily correlated for crime, Switzerland is unique in that almost all gun holders are disciplined militia.

Mass shooting and massacres dont happen often. Its one in a million. The advantages of personal protection offset the disadvantage of something like a mass shooting, that is extremely rare. People getting mugged and robbed are more common occurences.

But shoot outs will be more likely to increase, you cannot argue with that. Gun shot wounds will become more prevalent. A leads to B. B leads to C. A loss of a wallet becomes a loss of life as you pull out a gun and get your stupid ass shot and another gun is lost to the black market. Way to turn a mugging into a murder. Remember, criminals will expect to carry a gun and to use force at the slightest twitch if ordinary citizens suddenly arming up. Fantastic combination. Criminals armed and expecting a gun fight who will over react to the slightest wrong movement. I applaud your society. Remember, they will always have the weapon drawn on your first

The girl wouldnt have been able to have a gun anyway, honestly. She was underaged. But some one else with a gun could have stopped it. In THAt particular case.

Now being from India I can tell they were just punks with no future just by lookin at them. But generally speaking, yes educated people can also do bad things, I dont deny it. But its far less likely that a person that is educated, has a good job, a good paycheck etc is gonna commit a crime, that too a murder etc., If that happens, then it is a crime yes. But crime will always be an unfortunate part of our societies, with or without guns. Like I said guns dont make people commit crimes.

herp derp, guns dont commit crimes, people commit crimes. rehash of the old busted argument. I still dont see what makes an educated person want to step up and lose it all while an uneducated person wont step up for his friends/gang and lose nothing. Your filter is flawed. It doesnt disclude the punks from the girl (what if the girl was 18, same argument). Punks with no future are the worst kind of people to encourage a gun friendly society with.

Again, if you control who you give guns to, then the goons wont have guns on them in the first place.

Gun control in USA wont work, you establish a filter right now and nothing will change, the guns just proliferate and go everywhere until you can get a shooter illegally for a weeks paycheck min wage to rob for 5 weeks paycheck min wage. If you look to countries with massive and stringent controls on guns already (Australia for example) you will find that it doesnt disclude the less savoury of the population from obtaining them (bikie gangs for example). This is with a system with more checks and balances, more leaping through hoops, more regulations and more control over guns than what you are proposing. You release and allow guns to the public, be prepared for the public to have guns. While Australia's criminals do have guns, the difficulties in obtaining one really limits what you expect in any standard crime.

Secondly, you are talking about jumping me. What about those cases when someone tries to carjack you ? What about those cases when someone tries to break into your home/property? What about those cases when someone tries to rob you in an alley?

Personal experience: I have a friend at office. He was mugged TWICE. Once when he was returning through a dark alley, he was attacked and punched in his face and he had to give them money for them to let him go. Second, his car was stopped and he was stabbed in the hand. Guns can stop these kinds of instances. Ofc you can bring up lots of instances where guns cant be used or wont be useful, but just having guns alone doesnt ensure your safety. You need to ensure that you stay out of trouble too. Guns are and can be a very useful deterrent in many cases.

Hmmm the car one is iffy, but that alleyway one was a definite gun shot wound to him + mugging or a normal mugging + gun stolen and used for other crimes. Alleyway would have been 2 + people. one on either side of the alley to block escape, drawing a weapon on one might have resulted in them running off, or retalitory gun shot wound after getting quickly mobbed and gun taken. In short, carrying a gun in that situation would have likely been worse since the most likely result would be standard mugging + a gun in the hands of criminals who have shown a willingness to mug and use violence on others.



What I mean is, there is more social justice in Australia, than in US and India. Therefore, you cant say Australia has less crime because you have less guns. Thats not the case. Australia has less crime, cuz it has higher living standards, more social justice, than the US or India. You repeatedly tie crime rates to guns. In this case statistics dont mean anything, because when you say guns make it easier for people to commit crimes....you talkin about YOURSELF. In reality, pulling the trigger on a person is just as difficult as stabbing him/her. For US. For a criminal it just doesnt make any difference.

I am going to have to heavily disagree with "trigger is just as difficult as stabbing someone" Trigger is detached, its emotional and physical couplings are reduced to a glorified switch. A stabbing on the other hand requires the person to REALLY get in there and be willing to go hand to knife to body. Given the choice of killing someone, gunshot would always be easier than having to slit their throat. always. Given the choice of harming someone, gunshot would be easier than slicing someone, actually, physically running at them or leaping at them and slicing at their body. As for social justice, Latvia ranking higher than USA with a GDP at just a third of USA's makes social inequities are big factor but not the deciding factor. Latvia has 2.5% of the population as gun holders. Australia's is more than that for comparisonwise. (4% roughly). Not drawing any causality lines but Latvia = Relative dump in comparison with many developed countries. Latvia is better than USA at gun control. Latvia experiences lower homicide rate.

Only for law enforcement?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/08/us/califo ... index.html

I do not support arming the homeless (I doubt you do). I do support those monsters to be held accountable and the police system overhauled or stringently looked at and fixed due to that incident.

Regarding 2nd link. I would be more worried about the CIA than the FBI. and injustices perpetuated by the FBI pale in comparison to the CIA in international "incidents"