If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On May 23 2013 02:21 Velr wrote:



A military rifle which you can take home after 21 weeks of military service (+3 weeks every year after until your ~30) and you don't get any ammo.


So.... How does that compare to "background checks"?

On May 23 2013 02:24 Millitron wrote:

So the military doesn't give you ammo with the gun? You can still easily buy it yourself.

"In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today."

To 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 disqualified (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 must ask for Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit).

After turning 18, any individual can buy singleshot or bolt-action 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 accessories 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.

Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit. 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.

Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.

On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
It's cool to see that the majority of the people have no issues giving back that ammo.

On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
I myself don't care for a ban on guns. I don't know too much about the gun registry (besides the heated arguments in this thread), but I do think that background checks are important and are not that restrictive to anyone who have a clean record and are of sound mind.

On May 23 2013 03:06 JinDesu wrote:
While I understand that there are posters in this thread that disagree with what qualifies as an assault weapon, I don't think it's unreasonable for items like silencers or fully automatic modes to be banned. And Switzerland provides an option to get those accessories - by submitting to an additional permit.

On May 23 2013 03:20 Millitron wrote:

The 50 rounds the government gave out was only like, $15 worth. Not like they can't just go buy more.


Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works.


What does that accomplish? You're aware that fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes, right? Even semi-automatic rifles are almost never used.

Do you know how background checks work in the US? You have to do it through a licensed firearms dealer, which entails lots of fees and time. If it was just a phone call to a government office, that only returned a yes/no answer so as to protect the purchaser's privacy, I'd be OK with it. Too bad that's not how it works.

On May 23 2013 03:29 Jormundr wrote:

Durr? Because they've been effectively banned from general use? Funny how that works.

On May 23 2013 03:30 JinDesu wrote:
If your question of "what does that accomplish" is to apply to both my quotes:

I think background checks can help to reduce the number of sales to people who have criminal pasts and people who have mental illnesses. This would not prevent your average gun owner from buying guns, but it could reduce the number of shootings caused by people with criminal pasts or people who have mental disorders - and thus reduce the stigma of gun ownership.

I think fully automatic weapons are practically never used in crimes because currently restricted, no? And semi-automatic rifles aren't often used because they can be more expensive than handguns, are harder to carry around without being noticed, and are not typically the weapon to grab in unpremeditated crimes. On the other hand, when I hear the news stories from countries where gangs/criminals get illegal automatic weapons, they have much stronger capability of repelling your average law enforcement person.

As far as silencers go, I really can't imagine what a person would get one for - besides using the weapon in an environment where you don't want to have it heard. I understand that silencers don't actually make it silent, but under what condition would you want to silence you weapon? Perhaps providing me some reasonable scenarios could change my mind.

On May 23 2013 03:33 Ettick wrote:

Reloading used brass and buying ammo online make an ammo registry such as that completely invalid
Also, why are hollow points only permitted for hunters? I seriously can't think of an answer to this question...

On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.

The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law.

On May 23 2013 03:34 Millitron wrote:

Semi-automatics haven't. The most common civilian rifle in the US is the AR15, with over 4 million in civilian hands.


Fully automatics were practically banned by the NFA, which was passed in response to the Mafia using machine guns. But by the time it got through Congress, the Mob had already mostly stopped using them. Too many people had been hit by stray bullets, which ruined the Mafia's reputation with the public. People at the time had seen them as anti-heros, standing up to the banks and government that had screwed so many people over after the stock market crash. They were often more than happy to help the Mob now and then. But too many innocent bystanders were being shot, and it ruined that quasi-alliance. Mobsters stopped using machine guns after they realized this, but it was too late for them.

Silencers are good because you can shoot safely without ear protection, especially in indoor ranges. They're still kinda loud though, so its not like legalizing silencers will cause a wave of completely undetectable shootings. They also do a good job lessening the muzzle flash, so you can hunt without worrying about starting a forest fire in dry brush.

On May 23 2013 03:44 Ettick wrote:
Full-autos are not actually restricted for civilians in the USA to own, you just need to pay a $200 tax stamp and everything is fine. The problem is that the ATF will not allow full autos from after 1986 (iirc) so the cheapest full auto guns you'll find will be around $5,000 for something like a MAC-10 and $10,000 and up for most rifles. FN FNC's are pretty cheap though, sometimes as low as $4,000 for whatever reason. Still, that's a shit ton more expensive than a semi-auto rifle.

The reason why you want hollow-points isn't just because they do more damage, it's because they penetrate stuff less. That means that you'll put whatever is behind the target you're shooting at, say a bystander or your neighbor's house, is in significantly less danger. It's a completely nonsensical law.

On May 23 2013 02:18 Millitron wrote:

Usefullness should have nothing to do with your rights. Alcohol fit for human consumption has no significant uses, and kills more people than guns. You still want the right to have alcohol, correct?

On May 23 2013 03:53 Melliflue wrote:
The 'use' of alcohol is enjoyment. People enjoy it and it helps them relax. Personally though I'm teetotal and think it would be great if people didn't drink to excess or drink & drive etc but they do. Making alcohol illegal though would probably make things worse because people would just break the law and so organised crime would get a new revenue stream. So for me, ideally people would be allowed to drink because nobody would abuse it. Pragmatically making alcohol illegal has a bigger negative effect. (This is debatable but it is a side topic, and I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between arguments based in idealism and arguments based in pragmatism).

My attitude towards guns is quite similar. It would be wonderful if everyone could own a gun and nobody ever misused a gun, but that's not how the world is. So pragmatism should take over and restrict access to guns. That's how I end up with the question of whether the value guns contribute outweighs the harm done. It's a pragmatic approach.

On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:

Registration really depends on state, but I'm pretty sure they need to be registered since they are NFA items.

On May 23 2013 03:55 Ettick wrote:

Yeah, they need to have been registered prior to May 19, 1986 too

On May 23 2013 03:59 JinDesu wrote:


If they are required to be registered upon purchase, then I have no issues with them. I would only like to include background checks for people who purchase these weapons. At that price point, I can't imagine the additional cost of background checks would be too detestable for gun owners.

With regards to background checks and cost issues for your average gun purchase - I'd like it if we focused on improving the efficiencies and reducing the costs of background checks so gun owners would not find it to be prohibitive. It's great to ask for background checks, but I see that it is more than just typing a person's information into a computer and reading what comes out.



Oh wait, so you can't buy and register a fully automatic weapon after 1986?

On May 23 2013 04:01 Ettick wrote:

You can buy a fully automatic weapon that has been registered in 1986 or earlier, registration doesn't need to be done by the buyer.

On May 23 2013 04:06 Millitron wrote:

Silencers are restricted in the US too in much the same way, at least Federally. Gotta go through the ATF and get a $200 tax stamp. They're restricted even further in some states, with NY considering anything with a silencer an "Assault Weapon".

If a fully automatic weapon was made or imported after 1986, it can't be bought or sold, at least not without being converted to semi-automatic. I believe you can still inherit it, but I'm not certain.

On May 23 2013 03:58 micronesia wrote:

You pointed out the problems with restricting alcohol (see 1920s USA) but pointedly ignored the problems with further restricting guns. You can't have it both ways!

That's not to say all new gun restrictions would be bad, but there would be some similarities at least between the prohibition and hypothetical increased gun bans. History has shown laws of prohibition are not a good way to change culture.