Are Guns Silencing Free Speech?

[thephysicsman]

Would you feel that you could speak (or argue) freely with a person having his handgun displayed?

It depends who it is. If it was a good friend, that'd be no problem.

 

[FlexGunship]

We have INCREDIBLE freedom... let's show a little... darned... responsibility and actually follow what is sound tactical doctrine ANYWAY!

Well, okay. I will yield a bit here. There's no actual reason why you shouldn't be aware of gun carriers near you. They're likely to be the ones who can save you when another Luby's massacre happens.

During the shooting, Hennard approached Suzanna Hupp and her parents. Hupp had a handgun in her vehicle outside. Her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him but was gunned down; a short time later, Hupp's mother was shot and killed.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

How much do you think Suzanna Hupp wished she had carried her gun into the restaurant with her that day? Open carry, or concealed? I'm sure she is living the rest of her life with her gun at her side... in movie theaters, shopping malls, daycares, and PTA meetings.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, okay. I will yield a bit here. There's no actual reason why you shouldn't be aware of gun carriers near you. They're likely to be the ones who can save you when another Luby's massacre happens.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

Right, or they're Loughner, or a cop, or a citizen, or a crook. As people, we have no way of knowing, so I tend to be cautious rather than optimistic about people in general. If someone walked in with a big damned knife out I'd take note too; it's doesn't mean I'd hate the person or garrote them. I'm talking about situational awareness: armed = more threat than unarmed.

Oh and about Luby's... I think that argument is a little old as of three weeks ago. There was a crowd there to meet their pro-gun congresswomen... none of them returned fire. One of the guys who tackled Loughner may have been armed, but that would just hurt your case more. After all, according to Barber (shot in the leg and cheek), Loughner "swept" his gun while rapidly firing into the crowd after his initial aimed shot to the congresswoman's head.

By that same man's account, he had his gun in hand... in AZ, where you'd think someone in that safeway or parking lot would be the fictional "hero of luby's". I'm not convinced: if you have a gun, skill, and initiative... that's a massive tactical advantage and we both know it. If you're not actively scanning crowds for people carrying guns, AND making note of that fact, as well as behavioral profiling... you're not really going to save lives.

How much do you think Suzanna Hupp wished she had carried her gun into the restaurant with her that day? Open carry, or concealed? I'm sure she is living the rest of her life with her gun at her side... in movie theaters, shopping malls, daycares, and PTA meetings.

OK... I bet she wished that she had it, and given that gunner was picking people off with no concern for any lives (including his own), it's reasonable to assume he'd start with HER if she carried OPEN. If she's carrying concealed... good move I say, but then, we've already established that I'm the gun owner out of the pair of us, and like most who are in it for pure SD/HD (and target, sport/hobby) I carry concealed because I believe it's an ADDED advantage.

Explain to me how Ms. Hupp would have been better served with open carry, rather than a pistol on a rig? Very emotional and all, but you know me... I like you, but this is business... and you deflected to something we don't actually disagree with: she should have had a gun on her.

I just don't think she should have it worn in the style of the 1700-1800's. Call me post-modern.

 

[FlexGunship]

Right, or they're Loughner, or a cop, or [...] think she should have it worn in the style of the 1700-1800's. Call me post-modern.

Okay, fine. I've been dragging this a bit off-topic. The fact is, I've been around gun carriers for a long time. Open and concealed. The OP asked if it would inhibit my freedom of speech, and I'm at the point in my life where I can say that it wouldn't. The gun carriers are my friends; they're there to protect me.

Concealed: offers greater tactical advantage in an actual "situation." Granted.
Unconcealed: let's people around you know you have nothing to hide.

Which are there more of: honest gun-carrying citizens or crazed lunatics? I don't treat every guy in a car as a drunk driver until he does something decidedly drunk-looking. I don't treat every guy with a gun like a maniac until he does something decided maniacal!

It's not an absurd proposition. Maybe I just feel safer in New Hampshire.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Yeah, except for myself, who owns guns and carries one, mugaliens (same), Flex (non-owner, but supporter), and yes, Jarednjames who is just expressing his view.

I'm a concealed carrry permit holder as well. I only open carry on gun ranges, mainly for the general reasons presented. But unlike you, I can understand the aruments FOR open carry as well, such as discouraging a criminal from approaching you in the first place.

Mech_Engineer: What kind of... individual... assumes that a random person is law-abiding or not? We're talking about an open display of armaments vs. a closed display, with both being equally effective as a means of self defense. My suspicions DO apply to concealed carry, when I'm able to notice it, as I actually mentioned earlier. You should read more when posting outside of your very range, it would help your accuracy.

I've done plenty of reading on the subject, including publications from the FBI and NRA. Here's a good finding from the FBI study "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers":

From USNews.com:
In attempting to discredit open carry, anti-gun activists often like to ask the question, "How do I know that the person openly carrying is in fact a law-abiding citizen and not a criminal?" While this is an attempt to imply that anyone who lawfully carries a firearm is a potential criminal, thankfully there is an authoritative answer available. The 2006 FBI study "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers" by Anthony Pinizzotto revealed that criminals carefully conceal their firearms, and they eschew the use of holsters. In layman's terms, this report tells us that, statistically speaking, citizens who are openly wearing a properly holstered handgun and are willing to subject themselves to the intense public and law enforcement scrutiny that open carry brings with it are not criminals.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/15/why-open-carry-gun-laws-work

Link to full FBI Study and summary of it's findings: http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=86516

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay, fine. I've been dragging this a bit off-topic. The fact is, I've been around gun carriers for a long time. Open and concealed. The OP asked if it would inhibit my freedom of speech, and I'm at the point in my life where I can say that it wouldn't. The gun carriers are my friends; they're there to protect me.

Concealed: offers greater tactical advantage in an actual "situation." Granted.
Unconcealed: let's people around you know you have nothing to hide.

Which are there more of: honest gun-carrying citizens or crazed lunatics? I don't treat every guy in a car as a drunk driver until he does something decidedly drunk-looking. I don't treat every guy with a gun like a maniac until he does something decided maniacal!

It's not an absurd proposition. Maybe I just feel safer in New Hampshire.

Remember FLex... and this is the part we all hate to think about: who is that is MOST likely to rape, murder, kidnap, etx... you or someone you love? Nearest and Dearest. Why?... well, one theory is that it has to do with trust, and a desire to maintain a sense of social equilibrium.

Anyway, you SHOULD feel safe in NH!... really, it's a pretty nice place, although ungodly cold this time of year (I guess you know that... heh). Is it gun toting neighbors protecting you who make you safe, or is it just the population density, standard of living, etc?

I'd feel safer naked in NH, than I would with all three of my pistols on open holsters, and a shotgun with a bandoleer... in Detroit, at night. If people don't get you, bloody bears MIGHT (not a joke). If I lived in rural NH, I'd definitely get a nice long rifle: you can actually take long shots safely in some parts of NH!

Anyway, my point is that I go for tactical advantage when it comes to weapons, not the statement. If I want to tell people that I support guns, there are ways to do that without displaying the nature of my arms.

Oh, and the question really is: are there enough honest, gun-carrying citizens with the training, who carry (open or otherwise) on their person to really effect crime? I'm not seeing it in any state, with or without concealed or open carry laws. There are a loooot of armed robberies each year, and what will a cop tell you? Give them the money, don't brandish a weapon, if you have one and need to use it try and get the element of surprise.

After all, who the hell wants to be in a one-one shoot out?! Luby's works because it was a clear last resort in extrema... most crime wouldn't merit a lethal response from civilians. For those that do, I would argue concealed just makes sense, as I have all along.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm a concealed carrry permit holder as well. I only open carry on gun ranges, mainly for the general reasons presented. But unlike you, I can understand the aruments FOR open carry as well, such as discouraging a criminal from approaching you in the first place.

Stop for a second... that last statement: is it falsifiable? How many times has a criminal taken a look at someone who has (or who they THINK has) a gun, and walks away? Does that criminal then rob the next store? Maybe, but it's not a valid claim. Making you a target on the other hand, may not be common for a random junkie, but it is preferred tactical doctrine.

I've done plenty of reading on the subject, including publications from the FBI and NRA. Here's a good finding from the FBI study "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers":

From USNews.com:
In attempting to discredit open carry, anti-gun activists often like to ask the question, "How do I know that the person openly carrying is in fact a law-abiding citizen and not a criminal?" While this is an attempt to imply that anyone who lawfully carries a firearm is a potential criminal, thankfully there is an authoritative answer available. The 2006 FBI study "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers" by Anthony Pinizzotto revealed that criminals carefully conceal their firearms, and they eschew the use of holsters. In layman's terms, this report tells us that, statistically speaking, citizens who are openly wearing a properly holstered handgun and are willing to subject themselves to the intense public and law enforcement scrutiny that open carry brings with it are not criminals.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/04/15/why-open-carry-gun-laws-work

Link to full FBI Study and summary of it's findings: http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=86516

What that report should tell you, given who tends to shoot and kill whom, is that you should imitate the criminals and everyone else except police. I'm asking why wear it openly, not if doing so magically turns you into a criminal. Again, I'm still taking note if someone has a gun... I take note if a friend who has a gun decides to have a beer. I keep track of a lot, so maybe I'm just a freak (have fun with that), but part of life should be casual risk evaluation.

Do people who openly carry guns follow OTHER elements of tradecraft that would improve their chances (proven to btw) in a violent encounter? I agree with Flex agreeing with me: concealed = tactical advantage, and your assertion that guns prevent crime is not falsifiable, and I'm not sure that it can be proven either.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Stop for a second... that last statement: is it falsifiable? How many times has a criminal taken a look at someone who has (or who they THINK has) a gun, and walks away? Does that criminal then rob the next store? Maybe, but it's not a valid claim. Making you a target on the other hand, may not be common for a random junkie, but it is preferred tactical doctrine.

This isn't "real" proof in that it isn't a statistical study, but it does happen (your interpretation of "preferred tactical doctrine" isn't proof either, criminals will tend to target the weakest individual).

From Examiner.com:

There is some debate raging in Georgia about whether people should conceal their holstered handguns while in public. Some believe that wearing handguns openly will result in a loss of the element of surprise during a criminal attack, such as an armed robbery, while others believe that wearing handguns openly deters criminal attack. For Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell, who carry openly as a routine, the issue is no longer academic.

Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell were dining in the Wafflehouse on Barrett Parkway at I-575 in Kennesaw at 4:45 in the morning recently when a scout for an armed robbery crew entered the restaurant to case it. At the time, Matt and J.P. thought he looked a little suspicious, as he was wandering around the small restaurant like he was looking for someone. Unknown to Matt and J.P., two cars full of armed robbers were parked behind the restaurant waiting for the scout's report.

The scout saw that two of the customers were wearing holstered 1911 Springfield Mil-Spec .45 pistols, and he immediately turned and left the store.

Meanwhile, conscientious Cobb County Police Officer D. Lowe had noticed suspicious cars sitting behind the restaurant in the dark and decided to investigate. He caught men with masks and rifles who had been preparing to rob the Wafflehouse. The criminals informed the police that they had changed their mind upon discovering armed customers and were waiting for Matt and J.P. to leave. Ironically, the police car was pulling into the parking lot just as Matt and J.P. were driving away. In other words, had Matt and J.P. not been armed, the robbery probably would have occurred before the police intervened.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-atlanta/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

 

[nismaratwork]

This isn't "real" proof in that it isn't a statistical study, but it does happen (your interpretation of "preferred tactical doctrine" isn't proof either, criminals will tend to target the weakest individual).

From Examiner.com:

There is some debate raging in Georgia about whether people should conceal their holstered handguns while in public. Some believe that wearing handguns openly will result in a loss of the element of surprise during a criminal attack, such as an armed robbery, while others believe that wearing handguns openly deters criminal attack. For Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell, who carry openly as a routine, the issue is no longer academic.

Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell were dining in the Wafflehouse on Barrett Parkway at I-575 in Kennesaw at 4:45 in the morning recently when a scout for an armed robbery crew entered the restaurant to case it. At the time, Matt and J.P. thought he looked a little suspicious, as he was wandering around the small restaurant like he was looking for someone. Unknown to Matt and J.P., two cars full of armed robbers were parked behind the restaurant waiting for the scout's report.

The scout saw that two of the customers were wearing holstered 1911 Springfield Mil-Spec .45 pistols, and he immediately turned and left the store.

Meanwhile, conscientious Cobb County Police Officer D. Lowe had noticed suspicious cars sitting behind the restaurant in the dark and decided to investigate. He caught men with masks and rifles who had been preparing to rob the Wafflehouse. The criminals informed the police that they had changed their mind upon discovering armed customers and were waiting for Matt and J.P. to leave. Ironically, the police car was pulling into the parking lot just as Matt and J.P. were driving away. In other words, had Matt and J.P. not been armed, the robbery probably would have occurred before the police intervened.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-atlanta/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

You can list a thousand anecdotes, and for each one there could be one, or a dozen counter-examples. We don't, and won't know... because again, your claim isn't falsifiable.

Oh, and there is no, "my interpretation of tactical doctrine", there is just the tactical doctrine of given organizations, LEA's, and MOST importantly... what applies in the state you're in. If you want to seriously make the argument that carrying concealed doesn't' confer a benefit to the person carrying, your going to need some hard evidence that isn't controversial.

I'd note... there is this constant preoccupation with some here of, "THE CRIMINAL" attacking you. Guess what, unless you're a criminal too, or work in a select number of fields... that's unlikely! Watch your back at your next family picnic however, they're out to kill you. Those statistics exist, and are AFAIK common knowledge. Stranger Danger is crap, and it's the mentality that has people paranoid rather than cautious. I'm not saying that it never happens, but you just choose to pretend that guns are mostly used to defend people.

No, mostly , criminals shoot other criminals, cops shoots criminals, criminals shoot cops, and soldiers shoot each other.

Frankly, civilians, as in "clean record" civilians... least likely victims of violent crime.

 

[Loren Booda]

...statistically speaking, citizens who are openly wearing a properly holstered handgun and are willing to subject themselves to the intense public and law enforcement scrutiny that open carry brings with it are not criminals.

How statistically speaking - 51%? Why scrutiny if not potentially criminal?

My point here is that the statement seems poorly worded.

_____If a replica can induce fear then why not a real, open pistol?

_____What is the minimum responsibility to the public needed to wear an open pistol?

 

[nismaratwork]

How statistically speaking - 51%? Why scrutiny if not potentially criminal?

My point here is that the statement seems poorly worded.

_____


If a replica can induce fear then why not a real, open pistol?

_____


What is the minimum responsibility to the public needed to wear an open pistol?

Pro and Anti studies have the same kind of language, because they're both trying to prove or falsify something that is hasn't been, and may never be done.

Oh, as for responsibility: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

It's by the state, and it's VERY varied.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'd add, ANY group that is willing to undergo such scrutiny, for ANY reason, will result in weeding out some of the "bad apples". In that case, guns are just the window dressing for the real point: it's the "criminal" with guns.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You can list a thousand anecdotes, and for each one there could be one, or a dozen counter-examples. We don't, and won't know... because again, your claim isn't falsifiable.

How "falsifiable" is you claim that criminals will target an armed civilian first (or any of your claims for that matter)? You have yet to post a single study or piece of evidence which meets the standards you're trying to hold me to.

How statistically speaking - 51%? Why scrutiny if not potentially criminal?

My point here is that the statement seems to me poorly worded.

The FBI study is available for you to read on your own. Of the criminals interviewed in the study that "almost always" carried a firearm, they carried it in the waistband (groin or back). No holster, and no (public) open carry.

If a replica can induce fear then why not a real, open pistol?

It's taught in the NRA Concealed Carry course that if you're carrying a gun, it had better be loaded. Carrying a fake or unloaded gun can get ugly right away if someone calls your "bluff."

What is the minimum responsibility to the public needed to wear an open pistol?

It depends on the state. Some require only that you're allowed to legally own a handgun (which essentially means not a felon and can pass an FBI background check when purchasing the firearm), others require that you have a carry permit (a.k.a. concealed carry permit).

I personally think it's a good idea to require open-carry people to pass the same class concealed-carry permit holders have to go through, if only to familiarize them with local laws and test basic firearm proficiency.

 

[nismaratwork]

How "falsifiable" is you claim that criminals will target an armed civilian first (or any of your claims for that matter)? You have yet to post a single study or piece of evidence which meets the standards you're trying to hold me to.

I haven't claimed that criminals target armed civilians, I said it's what I'd do, and others have expressed other views. Oh, and the, "oh yeah, well what about yours?!" is just more fallacy...

The FBI study is available for you to read on your own. Of the criminals interviewed in the study that "almost always" carried a firearm, they carried it in the waistband (groin or back). No holster, and no (public) open carry.

And?

It's taught in the NRA Concealed Carry course that if you're carrying a gun, it had better be loaded. Carrying a fake or unloaded gun can get ugly right away if someone calls your "bluff."

Nice dodge, but it neatly avoids the issue that it's also ILLEGAL. In fact, use of such a replica in commission of say, a robbery, = armed robbery. The law recognizes the capacity of a weapon to intimidate (same laws apply) to the point of coercion; it's not an either or proposition, but rather a continuum

<SNIP>

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I haven't claimed that criminals target armed civilians, I said it's what I'd do, and others have expressed other views. Oh, and the, "oh yeah, well what about yours?!" is just more fallacy...

You have been taking your opinion as fact the entire time, and yet requiring me to provide hard evidence to back up my claims. Then when I ask YOU for evidence, you say I'm the one perpetrating more fallacy... who's dodging?

And?

I was simply providing the context Loren was asking for. In any case the FBI study is available for perusal at EVERYONE's convenience.

EDIT: also note the statement Loren is referring to as "poorly worded" is not directly from the FBI study, but rather the interpretation of it that I provided.

Nice dodge, but it neatly avoids the issue that it's also ILLEGAL. In fact, use of such a replica in commission of say, a robbery, = armed robbery. The law recognizes the capacity of a weapon to intimidate (same laws apply) to the point of coercion; it's not an either or proposition, but rather a continuum

<SNIP>

I was providing a reason that carrying a fake gun to provide criminal deterrence is a bad idea. Do you not agree? I'm not (puposely) trying to avoid anything...

 

[nismaratwork]

You have been taking your opinion as fact the entire time, and yet requiring me to provide hard evidence to back up my claims. Then when I ask YOU for evidence, you say I'm the one perpetrating more fallacy... who's dodging?



I was simply providing the context Loren was asking for. In any case the FBI study is available for perusal at EVERYONE's convenience.

EDIT: also note the staement Loren is referring to as "poorly worded" is not directly from the FBI study, but rather the interpretation of it that I provided.



I was providing a reason that carrying a fake gun to provide criminal deterrence is a bad idea. Do you not agree? I'm not (puposely) trying to avoid anything...

When did I claim that something was both my opinion, and a fact?

Oh, and yes, fake guns are a bad criminal deterrence, but who's been arguing AGAINST that? You're just shadowboxing, giving the usual NRA party line, and that really means you're treating this more as a political than a practical issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

You have been taking your opinion as fact the entire time, and yet requiring me to provide hard evidence to back up my claims.

That is one small portion of your post #165. I'm fascinated by it, because you dislike the inequality that I haven't made claims beyond my ability to back up, and instead express opinion. On the other hand, you feel HAMPERED, and as though I am the reason you should provide evidence for your CLAIMS. See, that's the key: I've provided stats and links for my CLAIMS; I'm not doing the same for an opinion.

This, all coming from someone relying on a premise that isn't falsifiable; that criminals are deterred by the sight of a gun.

I love that too, because somehow WE shouldn't even take notice, but criminals run and wet themselves. OOOOOK. I didn't realize that wearing your gun outside of your clothing had an effect on the CNS.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

When did I claim that something was both my opinion, and a fact?

When have you presented anything other than your opinion in this entire thread? Keeping this in mind, are you able to discredit the FBI study which shows criminals do not open-carry weapons? "What you would do," and "preferred tactical doctrine" doesn't cut it.

Maybe if a firefight broke out you would be the first one targeted, but the point is that open carrying a firearm can make a criminal think twice about starting a firefight in the first place. The difference is between having to react to a threat (criminal attacks you not knowing you are armed) and preventing the situation altogether (criminal attacks someone else who is not obviously armed, preferring the path of least resistance).

Oh, and yes, fake guns are a bad criminal deterrence, but who's been arguing AGAINST that? You're just shadowboxing, giving the usual NRA party line, and that really means you're treating this more as a political than a practical issue.

I'm not shadowboxing anything dude! Loren specifically posted "If a replica can induce fear then why not a real, open pistol?" and I responded to it. What's wrong with that? You say yourself that you agree, what are you even arguing at this point?

 

[nismaratwork]

When have you presented anything other than your opinion in this entire thread? Keeping this in mind, are you able to discredit the FBI study which shows criminals do not open-carry weapons? "What you would do," and "preferred tactical doctrine" doesn't cut it.

Maybe if a firefight broke out you would be the first one targeted, but the point is that open carrying a firearm can make a criminal think twice about starting a firefight in the first place. The difference is between having to react to a threat (criminal attacks you not knowing you are armed) and preventing the situation altogether (criminal attacks someone else who is not obviously armed, preferring the path of least resistance).



I'm not shadowboxing anything dude! Loren specifically posted "If a replica can induce fear then why not a real, open pistol?" and I responded to it. What's wrong with that? You say yourself that you agree, what are you even arguing at this point?

I'm not citing my opinions as a matter of course on GD, but if you have an issue with something I've said, tell me what it is (don't leave me guessing) and I'll either back it up, or retract it. If it's just my opinion, and presented as such... welcome to GD. You keep making claims about reality, such as guns preventing crime... and we BOTH know that's not a valid claim. I'm not going to repeat my original point on that, so yes, when you claim that something is true, rather than simply a profession of belief, you're held to a higher standard.

Your content is so lacking that you're reduced to a critique of my form...in GD... in an ABSURD thread. I've said it before. sometimes it's good to stick to your primary area of expertise.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Let me ask this: what is your answer to the original question posed in this thread? (open carry infringes on the right to free speech of others)

EDIT: You already answered it:

Given that, I agree: carrying openly doesn't infringe on anyone's rights

SO, this thread is over. It's obvious to me your goal isn't to prove anything, it's just to argue to the bloody end with anyone holding a different opinion than you.

 

[FlexGunship]

Your content is so lacking that you're reduced to a critique of my form...in GD... in an ABSURD thread. I've said it before. sometimes it's good to stick to your primary area of expertise.

Nismar, I've stayed out of this and read every post between you and Mech_Eng... you know we often function as a solid team and I trust our respect is mutual...

...but...

... I really think you're not doing your argument any justice. The excepts that Mech_Eng has been sharing from the FBI report are NOT trivial. They indicate two significant trends among criminals: 1) avoidance of civilians with firearms, and 2) a tendency to avoid open carry practices.

It would be in your argument's best interest to find a counter to these two points. Perhaps you could find a similar study by a different law enforcement agency that indicates the opposite?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Your content is so lacking that you're reduced to a critique of my form

I'm also curious, what is lacking in my "content"? I've provided at least some semblance of a case (whether you agree with it or not), while you dodge any criticisms by claiming you do not have to back up your opinion...

I've provided links to a study and an (admittedly anecdotal) event in which criminals avoided individuals which were excercising open carry of firearms. I have shown criminals a) statistically do not open carry firearms, and b) criminals will tend to attack people whom they hope are not armed, rather than targeting obviously armed civilians first.

The fact is that no 100% conclusive statistical studies exist which show:

• an increase/reduction in crime rates due to firearm posession
• an increase/reduction in crime rates due to open/concealed carry laws
• an increase/reduction in crime due to firearm control laws in general

This hurts both sides of the argument, so that leaves us with... my FBI study (and a few others if you want), a few anecdotal articles, and your opinon. Joy.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The excepts that Mech_Eng has been sharing from the FBI report are NOT trivial. They indicate two significant trends among criminals: 1) avoidance of civilians with firearms, and 2) a tendency to avoid open carry practices.

In Nismar's defence (how it pains me) the FBI study only shows that criminals statistically do not utilize open carry. I don't think it makes any claims of criminals avoiding armed civilians (although it does seem like a logical conclusion to me).

 

[Galteeth]

The Op is imagining the situation from a current perspective, where displaying handguns is not the norm. I think people might be more polite in such a situation, but people would still speak their mind. Although i am, for example, perhaps more cautious in what I say around police officers, I still speak my mind to them, on some occasions in strident tones where the situation warrants it. That is because I understand their use of their weapons is somewhat restricted by consequences. In the OP's hypothetical situation, a person who shot someone for expressing an opinion would quickly find themselves being shot by other people who were similarly armed with handguns.

 

[FlexGunship]

From Examiner.com:

There is some debate raging in Georgia about whether people should conceal their holstered handguns while in public. Some believe that wearing handguns openly will result in a loss of the element of surprise during a criminal attack, such as an armed robbery, while others believe that wearing handguns openly deters criminal attack. For Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell, who carry openly as a routine, the issue is no longer academic.

Matt Brannan and J.P. Mitchell were dining in the Wafflehouse on Barrett Parkway at I-575 in Kennesaw at 4:45 in the morning recently when a scout for an armed robbery crew entered the restaurant to case it. At the time, Matt and J.P. thought he looked a little suspicious, as he was wandering around the small restaurant like he was looking for someone. Unknown to Matt and J.P., two cars full of armed robbers were parked behind the restaurant waiting for the scout's report.

The scout saw that two of the customers were wearing holstered 1911 Springfield Mil-Spec .45 pistols, and he immediately turned and left the store.

Meanwhile, conscientious Cobb County Police Officer D. Lowe had noticed suspicious cars sitting behind the restaurant in the dark and decided to investigate. He caught men with masks and rifles who had been preparing to rob the Wafflehouse. The criminals informed the police that they had changed their mind upon discovering armed customers and were waiting for Matt and J.P. to leave. Ironically, the police car was pulling into the parking lot just as Matt and J.P. were driving away. In other words, had Matt and J.P. not been armed, the robbery probably would have occurred before the police intervened.

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-atlanta/open-carry-deters-armed-robbery-kennesaw

In Nismar's defence (how it pains me) the FBI study only shows that criminals statistically do not utilize open carry. I don't think it makes any claims of criminals avoiding armed civilians (although it does seem like a logical conclusion to me).

Yup, you're completely correct. I confused the FBI report with this one from the Examiner (i.e. story; not study). I apologize for the confusion.

Still... I would count this as a decisive iota of evidence (EDIT: perhaps one step above raw anecdote).

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I wonder if there's a study which compares statistical probabilities of being victims of violent crime for "normal" citizens (non-carrying and concealed carrying) vs. open carry people? A difference (or non-difference) would at least help put the concealed vs. open carry argument to bed...

 

[Jasongreat]

One question that has been brought up a few times in this thread, by certain people, is that why would one carry a weapon in the open if it was not to intimidate. Imo, the reason one chooses to carry their gun in the open is that to carry it concealed requires one to get the governments approval. An easy fix to this problem is to allow all those who are capable to carry, in the open or concealed. There would be no need to carry on your hip if you could carry concealed. As long as it take the permission of the government to conceal the gun you have a right to carry, there will be those who choose to carry openly instead of going through the process of getting permission of the government to carry it concealed. If it requires govenrment approval is it still a right, or is it a priviledge? The next part of the question is, does carrying a weapon infringe on the right to free speech? According to the 1st ammendment, free speech is only reduced if the congress does so. The text of the first ammendment is, congress shall make no law respecting, not that if one feels intimidated. If we carry the intimidation part forward, how about if one feels that they can't get a job because one feels the buisiness won't hire a certain color of person? Would one have to atleast apply and be denied, before they can file suit for racial discrimination? Or is the feeling they will be discriminated against enough? Only when guns are the topic will anyone ever argue that there need be no proof, only speculation.

 

[JaredJames]

Jason, if I say "try to speak freely and I'll break your arm", am I infringing your right to free speech? Of course I am, so it's not simply a case of "only congress can do it".

Now, earlier on I tried to move away from just guns and make it about intimidation in general. It isn't just guns. Any intimidation can impede your right to speak freely.

This reduced this particular debate to, not whether or not intimidation can infringe on freedom of speech (because it can and I think we all agree on that), but whether or not open-carry can cause intimidation in the first place. This where we're currently stuck so far as the OP goes.

 

[Jasongreat]

Jason, if I say "try to speak freely and I'll break your arm", am I infringing your right to free speech? Of course I am, so it's not simply a case of "only congress can do it".

Now, earlier on I tried to move away from just guns and make it about intimidation in general. It isn't just guns. Any intimidation can impede your right to speak freely.

This reduced this particular debate to, not whether or not intimidation can infringe on freedom of speech (because it can and I think we all agree on that), but whether or not open-carry can cause intimidation in the first place. This where we're currently stuck so far as the OP goes.

The gun carriers are not saying if you say something I disagree with I will shoot you, you are assuming they are saying that by wearing a gun, as far as I can tell from your posts thus far, there need be no other factor than that they are wearing a gun. Although you don't seem as nervous if one has a concealed weapon.

It has been pointed out by a few others, intimidation is not a case an impediment of your right to free speech. If you refuse to speak your mind to your college professor because he/she might fail you, is that a case of impeding your free speech? One always has to censor their own speech, it is only an example of infringement on your speech if someone says I will shoot/hurt you if you talk, not if you think they will shoot/hurt you if you speak your mind. Assumption has no place in law.

I agree, the gun carriers are not saying that. I have no problem with people carrying a gun. It doesn't scare me, it doesn't intimidate me. The most it might do is to get me to ask why they chose the gun they did, how often they go shooting, or something of that sort. Where I am from, if I was nervous about every gun I saw, I would have to go get a prescription for zanax. I was raised with guns, all my friends own guns, most every home has a gun or two or ten in it. Guns have been part of my life since a very youg age, there is no need to fear guns other than to treat each one as if it is loaded.

 

[DanP]

Your content is so lacking that you're reduced to a critique of my form...in GD... in an ABSURD thread. I've said it before. sometimes it's good to stick to your primary area of expertise.

Let it go, mech_engineer provided more substance to this thread than you did so far. At least he posted a study. You are all bull.

 

[DanP]

Jason, if I say "try to speak freely and I'll break your arm", am I infringing your right to free speech? Of course I am, so it's not simply a case of "only congress can do it".

Actually, you dont. You just provoke me to break your arm before speaking. Maybe that's a form of free speech as well, breaking an arm :P

 

[JaredJames]

Actually, you dont. You just provoke me to break your arm before speaking. Maybe that's a form of free speech as well, breaking an arm :P

On that basis though, neither can the government infringe your right to free speech.

They ban public speaking on the subject of, let's say, aircraft. If you do you go to prison.

It doesn't stop you speaking about aircraft in public, it just gives you a punishment if you do. Which is no different to me saying "speak about aircraft and I'll break your arm".

It's a deterrent to try to prevent you doing something by telling you there will be adverse effects if you do. The law wouldn't suddenly stop you being able to do it, it just makes it difficult / detrimental for you to.

The only way to actually stop someone speaking freely would be to literally gag someone.

 

[nismaratwork]

Nismar, I've stayed out of this and read every post between you and Mech_Eng... you know we often function as a solid team and I trust our respect is mutual...

...but...

... I really think you're not doing your argument any justice. The excepts that Mech_Eng has been sharing from the FBI report are NOT trivial. They indicate two significant trends among criminals: 1) avoidance of civilians with firearms, and 2) a tendency to avoid open carry practices.

It would be in your argument's best interest to find a counter to these two points. Perhaps you could find a similar study by a different law enforcement agency that indicates the opposite?

Are there any number of studies that I could find which would be convincing? Personally, I'm not impressed with the methodology of the FBI study, which relies largely on the testimony, honesty, and hindsight of armed criminals.

The best I COULD offer would be a study showing the risks of carrying openly vs. concealed, and I'm not sure that such exists. Why should I find a flawed study to refute a flawed study? By their own admission, most imprisoned criminals are innocent... there seems to be a selection bias as to when we believe people.

Mech: No, I'm arguing, as you can see from previous pages where you and DanP are not present, that carrying concealed in my view, is the wiser choice. You made a claim that depends on the ability to predict a given crime, OR the honesty of criminals... I'll pass. Until very recently carrying concealed (as Jason alludes to) was actually the "hot button" issue, not openly. Police wanted to know who had a gun, but as others have pointed out... having a gun doesn't make you a criminal.

Oh, and my FIRST reaction to this thread was a little more detailed: I pointed out that an artificial argument was being constructed between two synergistic legal rights. Mugaliens made a similar point before he wisely left the thread, and I foolishly stayed to be treated to the quality intellectual displays of some of this forum's finest members, when those displays stray from their narrow expertise.

 

[nismaratwork]

Actually, you dont. You just provoke me to break your arm before speaking. Maybe that's a form of free speech as well, breaking an arm :P

Your response to someone saying, "speak freely and I'll break your arm," isn't to get the law, or to say, "wow, why bother talking to YOU?!" and walking away... it's to break THEIR arm.

That explains a lot about how and why you post.

 

[nismaratwork]

I wonder if there's a study which compares statistical probabilities of being victims of violent crime for "normal" citizens (non-carrying and concealed carrying) vs. open carry people? A difference (or non-difference) would at least help put the concealed vs. open carry argument to bed...

If it exists, and you find it... I will sincerely apologize for anything you WANT, regardless of the conclusions of the study. ANYTHING to end what has to be one of the least purposeful arguments I've been a part of.

<SNIP>This hurts both sides of the argument, so that leaves us with... my FBI study (and a few others if you want), a few anecdotal articles, and your opinon. Joy.

YES! Which is why I leave it at my opinion instead of making this a "war of the flawed and semi-relevant studies". I keep saying, it's my opinion, I'm not claiming it's more than an opinion, and it's GD! I really don't believe that there are decent studies out there with the information needed to settle this argument. On one hand you have Gun-Control lunatics who think that guns sneak out in the middle of the night to murder toddlers. On the other you have the NRA, which is still fuming that everyone doesn't understand how CRUCIAL it is that they own at least a howitzer.

You and Drankin swooped in during the midst of DanP doing his nihilistic thing, and apparently MISSED the portion of the program during which these arguments were made, left alone, THEN misrepresented or mocked, and re-opened. You started an argument for reasons that still elude me, and told me that I was passing my opinion as fact, even though I call it opnion.

Yeah, that's going to start a reasonable chat... what the hell did you expect? You have ONE study that is more of a survey, I have my opinion (along with everyone else in this thread I might add), and AFAIK this claim made that open carry = deterrence is...

NOT FALSIFIABLE. Hell, even if you could PROVE that you, Mech_Engineer carrying your sig across your chest surrounded by neon... does that mean you averted a crime? Are you SURE you didn't just shift the target of that crime to a different person or store? Maybe that's enough for you, but when I think of a discussion here based on endless studies that conflict by orders of magnitude (2.5 million vs. 100,000... do those numbers mean anything to you? They should, they refer to the 2 major studies in this area... neither of which are generally accepted by the very LOUD "sides" in this debate.

Actual gun owners do what people have been saying throughout this thread:

They don't carry openly in communities where it might be trouble for them. Maybe the argument you could make is that, in a society where we can call 911 for sighting a gun (it's not abuse of the service, but reporting a someone bigger than you IS) in a legal setting... maybe open displays of guns actually hurt the gun owner in the 1st amendment?

My point there?... It's a RIDICULOUS ARGUMENT. If you lack the judgment and training to safely own, display, and use a firearm... don't. It's a right, not a requirement.

P.S. Flex: If I didn't make it clear, I do respect you.

 

[nismaratwork]

On that basis though, neither can the government infringe your right to free speech.

They ban public speaking on the subject of, let's say, aircraft. If you do you go to prison.

It doesn't stop you speaking about aircraft in public, it just gives you a punishment if you do. Which is no different to me saying "speak about aircraft and I'll break your arm".

It's a deterrent to try to prevent you doing something by telling you there will be adverse effects if you do. The law wouldn't suddenly stop you being able to do it, it just makes it difficult / detrimental for you to.

The only way to actually stop someone speaking freely would be to literally gag someone.

Actually, a careful injection of a few relatively harmless agents into the throat or larynx will achieve the same end, and if they try to write... ion-channel blockers!

Or killing them I guess, but then you can't see them trying to form words.

 

[IMP]

Jason, if I say "try to speak freely and I'll break your arm", am I infringing your right to free speech? Of course I am, so it's not simply a case of "only congress can do it".

The point you make here is actually the very reason why carrying preserves your right to free speech. Would he attempt to break your bones if you were armed? Not likely.

I believe that carrying makes everyone equal. A 95lb grandma and a 250 line backer are on a much more equal footing if both are armed.

 

[JaredJames]

The point you make here is actually the very reason why carrying preserves your right to free speech. Would he attempt to break your bones if you were armed? Not likely.

Replace "break your arm" with "have a gun to your head" and reconsider your response.

I believe that carrying makes everyone equal. A 95lb grandma and a 250 line backer are on a much more equal footing if both are armed.

Only if they are both equally trained / capable with the weapon. There are far more factors at play than simply carrying.

 

[nismaratwork]

Replace "break your arm" with "have a gun to your head" and reconsider your response.


Only if they are both equally trained / capable with the weapon. There are far more factors at play than simply carrying.

I'd add, I'm pretty sure my practiced hand is steadier on a .45 or .357 sig than nana's are.

Guns aren't magic in ANY sense, and that includes as means of self defense. You make some good points oh cat-avatared one.

 

[IMP]

The point I was trying to make is that if everyone is armed, everyone is far more equal. When no one is armed, the strong automatically have a huge advantage over the weak. That puts us back in the dark ages in my opinion.

 

[JaredJames]

The point I was trying to make is that if everyone is armed, everyone is far more equal. When no one is armed, the strong automatically have a huge advantage over the weak. That puts us back in the dark ages in my opinion.

No, when everyone is armed the well trained and more able have the advantage and the less trained and less able are disadvantaged.

It doesn't matter what we do, guns or not, there will always be inequality.

 

[IMP]

No, when everyone is armed the well trained and more able have the advantage and the less trained and less able are disadvantaged.

It doesn't matter what we do, guns or not, there will always be inequality.

Ah, but that inequality is by choice, not be genetics. If everyone is armed, everyone is on a much more equal footing. If no one is armed, the strong dominate the weak.

 

[JaredJames]

Ah, but that inequality is by choice, not be genetics. If everyone is armed, everyone is on a much more equal footing. If no one is armed, the strong dominate the weak.

By choice? In what way is it by choice?

I didn't realize illness and other factors (your granny for example, frail, weak etc) where optional.

Some people simply aren't capable, no matter how hard they try.

Genetics do play a part.

It isn't just about choosing to train or not to train. There are a whole host of factors (much the same as you not choosing to be tall / short) that you have no control over and simply prevent equality.

 

[nismaratwork]

The point I was trying to make is that if everyone is armed, everyone is far more equal. When no one is armed, the strong automatically have a huge advantage over the weak. That puts us back in the dark ages in my opinion.

Jared is correct, and frankly what does this have to do with the dark ages? Part of the reason there is greater gun control now than say, in the old west, is that there is a far more functional central authority and police force.

btw... just... logically speaking... if everyone suddenly had a gun on their person, you haven't made them equal, you've just escalated matters and changed who has what kind of advantage. You're proposing a way of scrambling the way that law enforcement is handled, in the expectation of... what? Less crime?

I'm sorry, but in an armed world, the marksman (especially with a good rifle) is king. That is not a good place to be; as discussed previously if you live in a country where 'everyone' has a Kalashnikov... you're in trouble. The guns didn't cause the conflicts, but universal openly carried arms is a symptom of something that is so far from the US standard of living that it's laughable. We shouldn't expect to see those kind of 'sores' on the body of lady liberty, if you catch my drift.

Remember... guns are just another subset within the larger set "Tool"... you don't fix or destroy a society by flooding it with weapons, or depriving them of weapons. We're supposed to have guns to form militias, and we did... they're called cops! We still have the right to bear arms, and do, because unless a cop can teleport to my location, it's still practical. There's a lot of "gun philosophy" about defending liberty, but in terms of the law and the reality of modern weapons and war, guns are about SD/HD/Sport/Hunting/Social-Target-Shooting.

edit: ... Oh, and Collecting. I mean REAL collecting too, not just stockpiling for the rapture.

 

[DanP]

That is not a good place to be; as discussed previously if you live in a country where 'everyone' has a Kalashnikov... you're in trouble. The guns didn't cause the conflicts, but universal openly carried arms is a symptom of something that is so far from the US standard of living that it's laughable. We shouldn't expect to see those kind of 'sores' on the body of lady liberty, if you catch my drift.

You mean, Swiss ppl are in trouble ? Ah no, because they have SIGs instead of AKMs. Maybe this is why they have one of the highest living standards on the planet.

I wonder if the fat chick in background is so scared of this man that she can't express her right to buy conserved vegetables, or speak, for that matter. But by the looks of it, she doesn't appear to care at all, for all she seem to care that man could carry a guitar and look more fearsome :P

 

[nismaratwork]

By choice? In what way is it by choice?

I didn't realize illness and other factors (your granny for example, frail, weak etc) where optional.

Some people simply aren't capable, no matter how hard they try.

Genetics do play a part.

It isn't just about choosing to train or not to train. There are a whole host of factors (much the same as you not choosing to be tall / short) that you have no control over and simply prevent equality.

Yeah... just what I want... EVERY old person toting a pistol... even the ones who can't see over the steering wheel or are legally blind!

I'd add, every person isn't an equal killer; you're not going to find someone in a crowd as crazy and "dedicated" as a guy like Loughner. People keep forgetting to mention that someone WAS carrying at the time... but it was all too fast.

Maybe the issue isn't guns... maybe the issue is TRAINING. Give everyone a course in common behavioral profiling... maybe then we can work out way to giving them all guns.

For now, I'll stick with people needing an LTC, or FID.

 

[IMP]

To the OP who said: "Would you feel that you could speak (or argue) freely with a person having his handgun displayed? I believe that I would be intimidated, so censoring my self-expression..."

I believe that both you and "the person" are back on equal footing if both of you are armed.

 

[JaredJames]

To the OP who said: "Would you feel that you could speak (or argue) freely with a person having his handgun displayed? I believe that I would be intimidated, so censoring my self-expression..."

I believe that both you and "the person" are back on equal footing if both of you are armed.

Assuming you could draw quicker than them of course.

I suppose if you didn't know their draw speed you could assume you were quicker.

 

[nismaratwork]

You mean, Swiss ppl are in trouble ? Ah no, because they have SIGs instead of AKMs.

Wow.. out of all that, and you still try to reach for the "Swiss Myth"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Read the actual laws... they're quite strict. Your SIG rifle is down-converted to even US
civilian standard semi-auto, and unless you're in the militia, you're not carrying it.

Not exactly granny-with-a-gun either...

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.

[edit] Conditions for getting a Carrying PermitThere are three conditions:

fulfilling the conditions for a buying permit (see section below)
stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon
The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.[citation needed]

[edit] Transporting gunsGuns may be transported in public as long as an appropriate justification is present. This means to transport a gun in public, the following requirements apply:

The ammunition must be separated from the gun, no ammunition in a magazine.
The transport has to be direct, i.e.:
For courses or exercises hosted by marksmanship, hunting or military organisations,
To an army warehouse and back,
To and from a holder of a valid arms trade permit,
To and from a specific event, e.g. gun shows.[8]

AND...

Conditions under the 1999 Gun ActTo purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller. The seller is also required to see some official ID from the purchaser, for such sales are only allowed to Swiss nationals and foreigners with a valid residence permit, with the exception of those foreigners that come from certain countries (Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Albania, Algeria), to whom such sales are not allowed even if they do have a residence permit. Foreigners without a residence permit or from countries on the ban list must ask for a special permit.

After turning 18, any individual can buy singleshot or semiautomatic long arms (breech-loading or muzzle-loading) without a permit (so-called "free arms"). Likewise, members of a recognized rifle association do not need a buying permit for purchasing antique repeaters, and hunters do not need one for buying typical hunting rifles.
Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessoires such as sound suppressors ("silencers") is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability). The purchase of such items is however legal with a special permit issued by cantonal police. The issuance of such a permit requires additional requirements to be met, e.g. the possession of a specific gun locker.
Most types of ammunition are available for commercial sale, including full metal jacket bullet calibres for military-issue weapons; hollow point rounds are only permitted for hunters. Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer's name in a bound book.Changes due to the Schengen treatyThe rules laid out above were changed on 1 December 2008 as Switzerland joined the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change:

Unlawful possession of guns will be punished

Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit: this is, from a Swiss point of view, a radical restriction that is assumed will undercut private gun trade dramatically.

Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.

Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law.

Only one weapon may be purchased per weapon acquisition permit: Presumably, this will dry out the market for relatively cheap used guns, including popular collector's items such as Swiss army revolvers from the late 19th/early 20th century.

Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market
through this registration requirement.

While the above mentioned "free arms" remain exempt from the weapon acquisition permit, the vendor is required to notify the local arms bureau of the sale.

Buying ammunition

Ready ammunition of the Swiss Army. Every soldier equipped with the Sig 550 assault rifle used to be issued 50 rounds of ammunition in a sealed box, to be opened only upon alert. The ammunition was to be loaded into the rifle magazine for use by the militiaman should any need arise while he was en route to join his unit. Any use other than this, or even unsealing, was strictly forbidden. This practice was stopped in 2007 due to safety concerns.[citation needed]The government subsidizes the production of military ammunition and then sells the ammunition at cost. Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range. Registration consists of entering your name in a log at the time of sale. No serial numbers are present on the individual cartridges of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but according to David Kopel "the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed."[3] Ammunition for long gun hunting is not subsidized by the government and is not subject to any sales control. Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as custom handgun ammunition) is registered at the time of sale.[9]

So enough about Switzerland... they're a tiny country with compulsory service, and frankl6y the fact that they need to maintain it in such a fashion IS a sign of military weakness. It's not social upheaval, but it's not exactly the lifestyle you get in the US where service is optional.

In other words... cut the crap.

 

[DanP]

Wow.. out of all that, and you still try to reach for the "Swiss Myth"...
[

Every able bodied male is in the militia till discharge age, amigo

So cut the crap.