The $64,000 question. As mentioned by others a competent, armed and trained populace would be the ideal scenario as well as enforcing the laws we have. Drop the PC bullsh.it and quit worrying about hurting the tender sensibilities of criminals. Profiling is a natural response for humans and animals alike. Fair application of the law irregardless of color or income or profession. Use prison for the incarceration of bad, bad men instead of using the system to make non-violent drug offenders into hardened gang bangers. Rapists, murderers and pedophiles get locked away, they've already taken too much from society and are of no use to us. Make the cops do their job and have the local community far more involved in who THEY hire to protect and serve them.

Everyone in Switzerland owns guns and is mandatory to take a gun safety class in school. There is virtually no crime there....hummmm.

Eliminate the red tape and politics from policing and make the community take ownership rather than having the community viewed as suspects by LEO. As it is now they have a license to do what they want and enjoy virtual immunity at the expense of the ones they abuse. Everything works better when everyone has skin in the game.

All men go thru military training and are issued weapons, which they can keep when their stint is over, so they do have high gun ownership.

They are, however, fourth in the world in gun related deaths...albeit quite behind the numero uno, the US of A.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. So long as gun owners can only come up with "more guns!" as the answer to gun violence, then more and more restrictive gun laws is what we will get.

Also Switzerland is a closed society. The EU has really been pressuring them to open their borders, which they did for a while per some trade agreements, but that sort of backfired and they are now going back to restricting the flow of people across their borders.

People in Switzerland are also rich, which means they like to do their crimes on a much larger scale, and in a non-violent manner. Guns aren't the right tool for that trade.

There may be something to the notion that armed people won't shoot each other, but I doubt that very much. Personally, I don't want to live in that kind of fear anyway. If some POS wants to take my life, I guess he can have it. I don't want the stress of trying to stop him ruling my life.

4th ? I would have never guessed that, you sure?

What's wrong with a gun related death??

Last time I checked............ cancer is a way worse way to go.

Todd, I did a little google search and found several studies that put Switzerland nowhere near the top in any of them. Here is one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Bullet vs Cancer , I'd pick bullet every time.

the problem with bullet method is when self administered it demonstrates independence, self confidence and self enpowerment. The other problem is it does not generate money for the medical industry.

The agenda for America is to cause everybody to be in fear of death and to be stressed out and depressed. our government wants everybody to be on anti depressants, in counseling , and to just be a victim of somthing. Confidence, independence and self enpowerment is the enemy. Thats why 60% of the US population is on prescribed mind altering drugs. They want everybody to be a slave to a bag of pills and doctors appointments. Breaking up families is the other agenda, They want women to be dependent on the government, not their husbands and to train the kids that marriage is bad early on. The more FRUCKED up you are, depressed, gay, bisexual, confused, a victim the better, it ensures a short life plagued with confusion and prescribed medication and total dependence on the system.

The more you stay away from doctors and medications the better off you are. There are plenty of natural substances which can give you relief for most of your problems or even cure them. The medical industry treats symptoms with drugs which cause more symptoms which need more treatment. Crime and cancer are both too big a buisness to cure...

Back before the leash laws became the norm it wasn't uncommon to see two dogs locked together.
You rarely saw an individual walking a dog on a leash.
And Dogs were happy.


Times are a changing.
Just Sayin.

Who cares if you get shot with a gun, hacked with a machete or ran over by a muslim with a truck? You are still just as dead. Take a look at the intentional homicide rate for all sources, with the percent of gun ownership in parentheses:

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

Top 12 Murder Rate

1. Houndouras (6.2%)
2. El Salvador (5.8%)
3. Venezeula (10.7%)
4. Virgin Islands (?)
5. Lesoto (2.7%)
6. Jamaica (8.1%)
7. Belize (10%)
8. St. Kitts & Nevis (?)
9. South Africa (12.7%)
10. Guatemala (13.1%)
11. Bahamas (5.3%)
12. Columbia (5.9%)

Bottom 12 Murder Rate

206. Norway (31.3%)
207. Indonesia (.5%)
208. Bahrain (24.8%)
209. Austria (30.4%)
210. Switzerland (45.7%)
211. Kuwait (24.8%)
212. French Polynesia (31.2%)
213. Japan (.6%)
214. Singapore (.5%)
215. Iceland (30.3%)
216. Andorra (?)
217. San Marino (?)
218. Monaco (?)

Numbers after are the gun ownership rates from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country)

Now, you can look at some demographic differences between the top 12 and bottom 12 and that will explain the crime rate because the gun ownership rate sure doesn't explain it. These same demographic forces also affect America. Liberals can't explain why high gun ownership in Iceland, Switzerland or Norway didn't lead to the mass killing fields like Democrat run Chicago, New Orleans or Baltimore with their failed gun control and out of control murder rates. Guns don't kill people, rapists and murderers do. Build that wall.

Trumpster (you know a great post is coming when it's addressed to someone using a fake moniker):

A couple things about those murder rates vs. gun ownership that might be worthy of consideration:

* Most of the countries with the highest murder rates have two things in common:
1. Lots of poverty, which motivates a lot of crime.
2. The distinction of being essentially governed by drug cartels, whose guns were probably not included in the statistics, would surely bump up the percentage significantly, and probably accounted for a huge chunk of the murders.

* Japan and Singapore, despite being densely populated and having a very small percentage of gun owners, are near the very bottom of the list. What makes those countries stark exceptions to the rule being suggested in this thread? My guess is that it's how highly those nations regard honor. Shooting people with whom you don't agree is apparently not honorable.

* Many of the countries with the lowest murder rates are relatively wealthy. No surprise there. And if you kill someone in Bahrain or Kuwait, you're the next one to die, no questions asked. Pretty solid disincentive right there.

Thanks for the data, but next time, don't forget to analyze it before spewing out any "clear trends."

I'm not anti-gun, but I am anti-bullchit, and that's the only reason I'm commenting.

Humm, a post which claims to be an anti bullchit post which uses assumptions, and even assumptions based on assumptions and unfounded conclusions in an attempt to "analyze" data.

Now that's what I call 100% certified "Bullchit".

A competent populace.

lol

Good luck with that.

Dan got it. These are people issues, and you really can't fix those with rules, regulations, or guns.

Blackmouth: Fair enough on the analysis critique (though I did stop short of claiming any conclusive trends based on my insufficient analysis). My point is that it doesn't take a whole lot of questioning, based on proven trends (poverty rates vs. murder rates, e.g.), to bring a conclusion that those data mean more guns = less murder (Christ - I felt dumb just typing that equation) into question.

Are you not at least curious about what makes Japan and Singapore apparently immune to the "not enough guns" disease we suffer from so rampantly here in the US? I know you're supposed to leave out the extreme outliers in a typical trend analysis, but I think this is one case where the outliers might be the most meaningful and compelling data in the set. Whatever they're doing in Japan and Singapore to keep their idiots and crazies from killing each other is working really, really well, and I think the rest of the world might want to look into it.

There was a time when just about everyone in the US was armed. Anyone seen movies or read accounts of life in the Wild West? Guns were EVERYWHERE, and murder was, too....

I wasn't claiming that more guns = less murder. I was claiming that the murder rate and the gun ownership rate have nothing to do with each other. Instead it's demographic issues, such as the poverty you touched on.

So Crooked Hillary wants to take away guns as well as allow immigration from areas with these demographic issues. Taking away guns doesn't reduce the murder rate but letting in poor immigrants does increase it.

The solution isn't more guns, it's less poor people. We need to stop importing poor people from other countries and stop exporting our good paying jobs and wealth. Crooked Hillary won't solve this, she has sold out to the globalists and can't wait to ship the rest of the jobs overseas.

So when did these values begin?
It sure as fuk wasn't before or during WW2, you have heard about the killing of 6 million Chinese right?

I think Hank's right about Japan and Singapore, but as Blackmouth pointed out, I have no data to support it, so it must be bullchit.

Sorry for assuming you were implying something you weren't, Trumpster.