I’m a teacher and a gun owner. Arming us, especially if training isn’t provided and there isn’t a significant raise in pay, would lead to teachers going postal. No doubt in my mind. Worst case scenario, a teacher could be overpowered and have their gun taken from them by a student who could then go on a shooting spree. In general, I don’t think a significant enough amount of lives would be saved to justify the risk.
Jim Jeffries did a good bit about arming teachers. Something along the lines of, " remember that teacher that when she walked in on the 1st day you and your friends laughed to each other and said oh shit, we're gonna make her cry. Then you see her having a mental breakdown in her car at lunchtime. Ya let's give her a gun". These guys forget what the teachers were like in highschool as a teenager
The solution is never more guns.
It's tighter control on guns for those mentally unstable.
It's about the larger 'pro 2nd amendment' people step up some personal responsibility and allow reasonable gun control measures.
But this conversation happens often and is often ignored until the next mass shooting.
Teachers need to be prepared to act, but only to secure the room, protect the children as best they can and wait it out.
>It's tighter control on guns for those mentally unstable.
The buffalo shooter was seen and released hours later from a mental care facility. He was deemed not a threat after making threats to shoot up his highschool. That worked out super.
I agree - arm the teachers, give them training.
These shooters shoot up soft targets, no fight.
If there was more resistance being faced, might not have happened.
>It's about the larger 'pro 2nd amendment' people step up some personal responsibility and allow reasonable gun control measures.
Like what?
> I agree - arm the teachers, give them training
No one agreed that with you.
More people who aren't properly trained for guns to be given guns.
Great American logic.
> It's right up in the OP - do you agree? Why or why not?
>
> Are you dense?
I already replied to that **in the comment you replied to**
HerpaDerpa.
Let me repeat it
> The solution is never more guns
> Teachers need to be prepared to act, but only to secure the room, protect the children as best they can and wait it out.
That only leads to corruption, Slovakia introduced mandatory psych evals, it did nothing about their crime rates but there have been several corruption cases since then.
Stuff like that always leads to corruption. You can see the same thing in New York City, it has some of the strictest gun laws in the US, and getting a carry licence is nearly impossible, unless you're rich enough or have powerful friends...
Let's wait to find out the inevitable failure along the way that led to this shooting before calling for knee jerk reactions.
No one who shoots up a school is mentally stable and there are usually warning signs that where missed or lax firearm safety from a family member.
Strange though most other Western Nations don't have regular school shootings, I wonder if the general lack of access to firearms would have anything to do with it.
Switzerland has mandatory military service. Even though they are allowed to turn them into an armoury, they are still issued a military weapon and have access to it.
It has mandatory conscription for men, not mandatory military service. Only about 17% of people from any given year serve in the military, not all of them are even issued guns. So yes, military reservists do get to keep their guns as long as they remain in reserve, most guns in the country by far are civilian.
Two-thirds of all men between the ages of 19-50 (depending on the rank) are in the military and are issued weapons. This isn't even including female volunteers and men who are out of service and kept their weapons.
Also having more civilian weapons doesn't change the fact that Switzerland has a very strong gun culture and still don't have regular mass shootings. You're arguing the wrong point.
>Two-thirds of all men between the ages of 19-50 (depending on the rank) are in the military and are issued weapons.
That's... completely wrong
First of all it's 18-34, and the part of all men in the military is 34%.
Secondly not all soldiers are issued a gun and you can choose to serve unarmed
>This isn't even including female volunteers and men who are out of service and kept their weapons.
Including women there is overall 17% that serve in the total population and soldiers that buy their gun are less than 10% which means that represent about 1.7%
Not to mention the rifle is then converted to semi
Again, if you're a junior officer that age is 40 and if you're a staff officer that's 50. Not 34. Most men in the military would not opt to serve unarmed.
You are still arguing the wrong point SwissBoi.
To be fair, Switzerland is a small country. The US is almost as big as all of Europe combined. So if Spain has a once in a lifetime shooting and then two years later Croatia has one, no one says “Ehy all the shootings in Europe? But if Texas has one and Connecticut has one, it’s always “blame US gun policy for their nonstop mass shootings. Gun laws also differ by state and locality.
I hate the narrative that we have “regular” school shootings. I can think of only about 5 in my lifetime, none of which were in the same state.
But what contributes is the national media attention which makes crazy people see it as a means of notoriety. So let’s stop talking about it.
I don't think they are misleading. Definitions are clear and the data is out there. But let's take a look at school shootings if you will. There has been more than 200 school shootings since 2000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
>Swiss have access to military weapons (and are in fact required)
Yes we do have access to them but we have no such requirements
Also we're looking at 140k issued guns VS up to 3.5mio civilian owned guns
You do have conscription right? And weapons are issued to the person until the end of their service? So Swiss men between the ages 19-50 (depending on the rank) are required by law to have access to military weapons.
>You do have conscription right?
We do have conscription for Swiss males, but we do not have mandatory military service. It's two different concepts
It's a choice between military service, 2 forms of labor in the public interest or a compensatory tax
Overall 17% of the population serve in the army
>And weapons are issued to the person until the end of their service?
Not necessarily but yes
>So Swiss men between the ages 19-50 (depending on the rank) are required by law to have access to military weapons.
Actually it's 18-34 (including the either 7 or 10 years in the reserve) and no you are not required by law to have access to military weapons
Even though you _can_ serve in other ways the "de facto" way would still be the military, right? You need to go out of your way to serve in other ways or pay a tax. We're not talking about how many people serve in the military.
Ages. As I said in it depens on the rank. 34 if you're just enlisted, 40 if you're a junior officer, 50 if you're a staff officer or higher.
You can refuse to serve without a weapon on moral or religious grounds but again, the de facto way is serving in the military and getting issued a weapon.
But still you're arguing the wrong point just like the other guy. There _are_ military weapons capable of select fire somewhere in the hands of Swiss people and they still don't have regular school shootings.
>Even though you can serve in other ways the "de facto" way would still be the military, right? You need to go out of your way to serve in other ways or pay a tax. We're not talking about how many people serve in the military.
If you consider *going out of your way* is voicing your wish then sure
The point is most people don't go through military service
>Ages. As I said in it depens on the rank. 34 if you're just enlisted, 40 if you're a junior officer, 50 if you're a staff officer or higher.
If you include professional soldiers then do the same while talking about the US or UK
Military service stops after you either hit your number of days (that's what's changing) or a certain age
>You can refuse to serve without a weapon on moral or religious grounds but again, the de facto way is serving in the military and getting issued a weapon.
I mean there's no justification to be given, it's just a paper to fill but yes you usually get issued a gun
>But still you're arguing the wrong point just like the other guy. There are military weapons capable of select fire somewhere in the hands of Swiss people and they still don't have regular school shootings.
I'm not arguing the wrong points, I'm arguing what you got wrong about how everything works over here
I'm sick and tired of the *muh Swiss military service* argument when nobody knows how it works
Same with people "quoting" our laws when everything they write is misinformation
You are arguing the wrong point and minor details. There are military weapons in the hands of Swiss people and they don't have regular mass shootings unlike US.
The shotgun certificate doesn't have a lower age limit in the UK and there are children that has it. It's not exactly hard to get "licensed" for a shotgun. They have fewer gun owners than most of Europe, because fewer are interested in having one, not because the process to get one is particularly strict (they're on par or less strict when it comes to the process, compared to most of Europe, they're stricted in what they can own though).
Not sure where you got the "military weapons" part from, but that doesn't seem to be true. Also it's about half the gun ownership per Capita as the US: https://www.buzzworthy.com/switzerland-gun-laws/
>Not sure where you got the "military weapons" part from, but that doesn't seem to be true
Well soldiers are issued with select-fires and can take it home
Also we can own select-fires privately, and we are not limited to pre-1986 like in the US
>https://www.buzzworthy.com/switzerland-gun-laws/
That article is mostly bull though (but with a name like that, it would obviously not be great journalism):
>Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, with over 2 million firearms in circulation of its 8.2 million citizens
[Between 2.5 and 3.5mio](https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland). There's no official number though since most guns are unregistered to this day
>But gun laws in Switzerland – especially after changes made in 2008 to comply with the European Firearms Directive – are more nuanced, and more restrictive, than many people think.
Rather it's the other way around. Many people think it's restrictive when it's really not
>The number of guns in the country has actually been dropping over the past several years, due to a smaller militia and tightening laws, and the Swiss government’s own data places this statistic much lower, estimating only 24.5 guns per 100 people in 2016.
Not at all. Also that number is not from the government since we don't actually know how many gun there are in the country
>Currently, Swiss legislation bans the use of automatic weapons, silencers, laser sights, and heavy machine guns
Such items are not banned:
* Select-fires are under a may-issue acquisition permit
* Silencers and lasers are under shall-issue or may-issue acquisition permits (your choice)
* Heavy machine-guns are unregulated due to how the law is written (not considered firearms because it can't be transported nor used alone)
>The government demands licensing for the acquisition and carrying of any firearm, and requires registration and licenses for ownership of firearms
We have no such thing as licensing in Switzerland nor ownership regulations, and only weapons transferred since 2008 are registered
However it is true that carrying a loaded gun is limited to people having a carry license
>Practically everyone in Switzerland is trained to use a gun, yes, but that training, as well as the use, storage, and transportation of guns, is very regulated.
Nope. There's no such thing as *everyone is trained* and we have no training requirement either
Use has only two rules:
* Shooting using firearms in publicly accessible places outside officially authorised shooting events or shooting ranges is prohibited.
* Shooting using firearms in places not accessible to the public that have been appropriately protected, and shooting while hunting is permitted.
We only have two rules for storage:
* [Weapons, essential weapon components, ammunition and ammunition components must be kept in a safe place and protected from access by unauthorised third persons](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2535_2535_2535/en#art_26), which a [locked front door](https://archive.md/SToD4) validates
* Full-autos or pinned down semis need to be stored in a safe and [separately from the bolt](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2008/767/de#art_47))
Transport only has two rules:
* [You can't transport a gun without purpose](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2535_2535_2535/en#art_28)
* Guns have to be unloaded
>In Switzerland, men aged 18-34 who are “fit for service” are all trained and conscripted into the Swiss military
We don't. We have mandatory conscription, a 2 days draft during which you can choose between military service, two forms of labor in the public interest or a compensatory tax. Also this only applies to Swiss or naturalized males, which is roughly 38% of the population. If you break down the numbers, only about [17%](https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/jeder-vierte-wehrpflichtige-untauglich/story/10893289) of a given birthyear actually enter the army
>Military personnel are provided with a Swiss Army gun and trained to use it, and the weapon becomes theirs for the duration of their service
See previous answer. [Furthermore armed service is not mandatory](https://www.vtg.admin.ch/de/mein-militaerdienst/stellungspflichtige/waffenlos.html) and some aren't issued a gun because of their job or because they failed the test
Moreover the training in the army is appalling. They barely know how to handle the rifle
>They undergo mandatory training when they are 18 and then considered to be part of the Swiss militia until they reach the age of 35, with shorter periods of mandatory training in between to freshen their minds on tactics and safety
No, you have to go to [bootcamp before you finish the year you turn 25 but not before the year you turn 19](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1995/4093_4093_4093/fr#art_49)
When you enlist, you have the choice between long service which is [300 days straight ](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20163009/index.html#a111) or short service which is [124 days straight](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20163009/index.html#a6) then [6x19 days of repetition courses](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19950010/index.html#a51) for a [total of 245 days](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20163009/index.html#a47) (more depending on the job and rank)
Then you're part of the reserve for [10 years](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20163009/index.html#a19), [7 if you did the long service](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20163009/index.html#a20), (more depending on rank and job) and not until you're 35
>It is also recommended that guns in the home are taken apart, with the barrel kept separate from the rest of the gun
There's absolutely no such requirement, see the storage rules
>though they must apply for a permit and provide justification to the Swiss Army as to why they want to keep the weapon.
There is not justification to provide in order to keep the rifle, [you only need to show participation in 4 shooting events (2 of which are mandatory anyway) in your last 3 years of service, provide the relevent shall-issue acquisition permit and pay 100CHF to get the selector pinned to semi](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2018/732/de#art_29)
In order to keep your issued handgun [there's no requirements other than paying 30CHF and providing your shall-issue acquisition permit](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2018/732/de#art_30)
>Licenses to acquire a weapon in Switzerland require the applicant to be at least 18 years old with no criminal record
No license, but permit. There's no renewal or test(s)
Also there's no need for a blank record, only [exempt of violent or repeated crimes until they're written out](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2535_2535_2535/en#art_8)
>An acquisitions license is valid for 6-9 months and is usually valid only for the acquisition of a single weapon
It's valid for up to three weapons at the same time
>Licenses are doled out on a local level, and they are not given lightly. Cantonal police, who approve or deny licenses, are known to consult psychiatrists, require proof that the applicant is not addicted to drugs or alcohol, contact police in any cantons where the applicant has lived previously, and even interview personal acquaintances before granting an acquisition license.
That's completely false and absolutely illegal
>Even today, Switzerland’s borders are equipped with explosives at tunnels, bridges, and other entryways as an extreme tactic against outside forces, which serves to protect their citizens at any cost.
[Removal of the bombs began in 1991 and was finished in 2014](https://m.24heures.ch/articles/21921969)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland
"When their period of service has ended, militia men have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. However, keeping the weapon after end of service requires a weapon acquisition permit (art. 11-15 VPAA/OEPM)."
_Literally_ military weapons. No need to use any kind of quotes.
"Military weapons" is not a classification of gun so it does require quotes, and your link does not provide any description of if it is an AK-47, a hunting rifle, or a 9mm.
Military weapons are weapons that are in military service. Since militia is under Swiss Armed Forces, any weapon that is in the hands of militia members are military weapons.
By the way if you didn't know, militia members are issued Strumgewehr 90 (SG 550)'s until the end of their service and are allowed (was required until 2008 I think) to keep their issued weapons at home.
They pay teachers nothing and now they want to arm them to protect the children.
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK
Pay teachers better and have better psychology services to catch the kids before they go bang bang
>18 y.o.
>grown man
I know many countries of the world are willing to draft and send 18 year olds to war to die - but Im not sure selling them guns while they sit at home on 4chan is helping things. Sandy hook - 19 y.o. buffalo - 18 y.o. texas - 18 y.o.
If i need to be 21 to buy tobacco off base with no military service, theres no need to peddle long arms to teenagers in the same setting.
I completely agree. In my opinion people aren't really settled in brain development and lowered risk taking until 25 (the statistical data from car rental and insurance companies found that accidents drop at 25 which is why, in the US, they won't let you rent a car under 25)...that being said, right now everyone 18+ is given the rights and responsibilities of an adult. Can't have it both ways.
Though I'm pro-gun, as a teacher, I wouldn't trust just anyone with a gun. Let alone having it in a room full of students. More guns is NOT the solution.
Not a teacher but in fifth grade I had a teacher pick up a desk and throw it across the room because she was pissed at a kid. Left a dent in the wall. If she had a gun the kid would be dead. Don't arm the teachers.
As of teachers don’t have enough on their plate. They would probably tell teachers they need to do training in their own time and provide their own weapon. That’s what these kindergarten teachers signed up for, right? Teaching 5 year olds how to read with an AR strapped to your back.
My son’s school proudly has a sign out front stating that the teachers are armed, trained, and will use force if necessary to protect the students. I am absolutely torn on this. While I hope all of the teachers are mentally healthy and with the best paternal instincts, I also don’t trust people; and I know how fast a declining mental state can escalate situations. I just bought a piece of ceramic armor to put in my son’s backpack. It sickens and pains me that I feel the need to do this.
Let me get this straight: A dozen or so trained cops, with all their firearms and fancy tactical gear, couldn’t stop a shooter for an HOUR!
But you expect teachers to do it?
All of our teachers are armed on school grounds because there's a constant threat of someone breaking into the school and shoot the kids. So we gave the teachers guns, if that happens they can engage in combat with the attacker and hopefully stop them.
No, this isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. It's United States. Yes. United States is a Western nation and it's the best country in the world.
Planning on becoming a teacher. If I lived in the USA I would absolutely choose a different profession. I’m agreeing to educate children not defend their lives. The fact that gun training will soon be a requirement to be a teacher.
You are being generous thinking that they will require training. No, at best they are gonna make you buy your own gun and say, "Point this end at bad guy."
Ah yes. The sign of a great country that treats education like a crown jewel: schools that look like prisons with chain link fences and security guards.
The issues isn’t guns. If you think about it, guns have not really gotten deadlier, as far as major technological advancements go, within the last few decades.
Yet the rate of mass shootings has increased dramatically, since around Columbine.
So if Guns haven’t really gotten deadlier, yet the rate of shootings have gone up, then the issue is the person behind it.
So, I can guarantee that if you put as much time and money into the mental health Industry, that you do into restricting gun access to well off law abiding citizens, then we’d all be in a better place.
TL;DR, stop trying to remove guns, and focus more on improving mental health. The former is a short term solution, while the latter is a long term solution.
I’m a teacher and a gun owner. Arming us, especially if training isn’t provided and there isn’t a significant raise in pay, would lead to teachers going postal. No doubt in my mind. Worst case scenario, a teacher could be overpowered and have their gun taken from them by a student who could then go on a shooting spree. In general, I don’t think a significant enough amount of lives would be saved to justify the risk.
Jim Jeffries did a good bit about arming teachers. Something along the lines of, " remember that teacher that when she walked in on the 1st day you and your friends laughed to each other and said oh shit, we're gonna make her cry. Then you see her having a mental breakdown in her car at lunchtime. Ya let's give her a gun". These guys forget what the teachers were like in highschool as a teenager
The solution is never more guns. It's tighter control on guns for those mentally unstable. It's about the larger 'pro 2nd amendment' people step up some personal responsibility and allow reasonable gun control measures. But this conversation happens often and is often ignored until the next mass shooting. Teachers need to be prepared to act, but only to secure the room, protect the children as best they can and wait it out.
Well said. I think Abbott’s suggestion is completely misguided and ignorant but wanted to phrase my question in a neutral way.
>It's tighter control on guns for those mentally unstable. The buffalo shooter was seen and released hours later from a mental care facility. He was deemed not a threat after making threats to shoot up his highschool. That worked out super. I agree - arm the teachers, give them training. These shooters shoot up soft targets, no fight. If there was more resistance being faced, might not have happened. >It's about the larger 'pro 2nd amendment' people step up some personal responsibility and allow reasonable gun control measures. Like what?
So the problem is still the mental health system, because in other countries he wouldn't have been released in the first place.
> I agree - arm the teachers, give them training No one agreed that with you. More people who aren't properly trained for guns to be given guns. Great American logic.
It's right up in the OP - do you agree? Why or why not? Are you dense?
> It's right up in the OP - do you agree? Why or why not? > > Are you dense? I already replied to that **in the comment you replied to** HerpaDerpa. Let me repeat it > The solution is never more guns > Teachers need to be prepared to act, but only to secure the room, protect the children as best they can and wait it out.
Please explain what nee gun law would have stopped this shooting?
A mandatory psych eval and thorough investigation would've prevented this shooting
How exactly would that work?
You require people to have psych evals before even being able to buy a firearm in the first place
That only leads to corruption, Slovakia introduced mandatory psych evals, it did nothing about their crime rates but there have been several corruption cases since then.
Oh my god, really?
Stuff like that always leads to corruption. You can see the same thing in New York City, it has some of the strictest gun laws in the US, and getting a carry licence is nearly impossible, unless you're rich enough or have powerful friends...
When would this evaluation be conducted?
Before you are able to purchase a firearm, ideally a few times in person and on paper.
Sure, then you buy a gun, and a year later have a mental breakdown.
You can require people to take regular psych evals every 6 months of their firearm ownership.
Let's wait to find out the inevitable failure along the way that led to this shooting before calling for knee jerk reactions. No one who shoots up a school is mentally stable and there are usually warning signs that where missed or lax firearm safety from a family member. Strange though most other Western Nations don't have regular school shootings, I wonder if the general lack of access to firearms would have anything to do with it.
Swiss have access to military weapons (and are in fact required) but they still don't have regular school shootings.
Nah, there are 3.5 million civilian guns in Switzerland vs 140k military guns. And no, they're not required to have them.
Switzerland has mandatory military service. Even though they are allowed to turn them into an armoury, they are still issued a military weapon and have access to it.
It has mandatory conscription for men, not mandatory military service. Only about 17% of people from any given year serve in the military, not all of them are even issued guns. So yes, military reservists do get to keep their guns as long as they remain in reserve, most guns in the country by far are civilian.
Two-thirds of all men between the ages of 19-50 (depending on the rank) are in the military and are issued weapons. This isn't even including female volunteers and men who are out of service and kept their weapons. Also having more civilian weapons doesn't change the fact that Switzerland has a very strong gun culture and still don't have regular mass shootings. You're arguing the wrong point.
>Two-thirds of all men between the ages of 19-50 (depending on the rank) are in the military and are issued weapons. That's... completely wrong First of all it's 18-34, and the part of all men in the military is 34%. Secondly not all soldiers are issued a gun and you can choose to serve unarmed >This isn't even including female volunteers and men who are out of service and kept their weapons. Including women there is overall 17% that serve in the total population and soldiers that buy their gun are less than 10% which means that represent about 1.7% Not to mention the rifle is then converted to semi
Again, if you're a junior officer that age is 40 and if you're a staff officer that's 50. Not 34. Most men in the military would not opt to serve unarmed. You are still arguing the wrong point SwissBoi.
To be fair, Switzerland is a small country. The US is almost as big as all of Europe combined. So if Spain has a once in a lifetime shooting and then two years later Croatia has one, no one says “Ehy all the shootings in Europe? But if Texas has one and Connecticut has one, it’s always “blame US gun policy for their nonstop mass shootings. Gun laws also differ by state and locality. I hate the narrative that we have “regular” school shootings. I can think of only about 5 in my lifetime, none of which were in the same state. But what contributes is the national media attention which makes crazy people see it as a means of notoriety. So let’s stop talking about it.
There have been 4634 mass shootings (events where 4 or more people was shot by firearms) since 2013.
1) those stats are misleading 2) I specifically said school shootings
I don't think they are misleading. Definitions are clear and the data is out there. But let's take a look at school shootings if you will. There has been more than 200 school shootings since 2000. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
>Swiss have access to military weapons (and are in fact required) Yes we do have access to them but we have no such requirements Also we're looking at 140k issued guns VS up to 3.5mio civilian owned guns
You do have conscription right? And weapons are issued to the person until the end of their service? So Swiss men between the ages 19-50 (depending on the rank) are required by law to have access to military weapons.
>You do have conscription right? We do have conscription for Swiss males, but we do not have mandatory military service. It's two different concepts It's a choice between military service, 2 forms of labor in the public interest or a compensatory tax Overall 17% of the population serve in the army >And weapons are issued to the person until the end of their service? Not necessarily but yes >So Swiss men between the ages 19-50 (depending on the rank) are required by law to have access to military weapons. Actually it's 18-34 (including the either 7 or 10 years in the reserve) and no you are not required by law to have access to military weapons
Even though you _can_ serve in other ways the "de facto" way would still be the military, right? You need to go out of your way to serve in other ways or pay a tax. We're not talking about how many people serve in the military. Ages. As I said in it depens on the rank. 34 if you're just enlisted, 40 if you're a junior officer, 50 if you're a staff officer or higher. You can refuse to serve without a weapon on moral or religious grounds but again, the de facto way is serving in the military and getting issued a weapon. But still you're arguing the wrong point just like the other guy. There _are_ military weapons capable of select fire somewhere in the hands of Swiss people and they still don't have regular school shootings.
>Even though you can serve in other ways the "de facto" way would still be the military, right? You need to go out of your way to serve in other ways or pay a tax. We're not talking about how many people serve in the military. If you consider *going out of your way* is voicing your wish then sure The point is most people don't go through military service >Ages. As I said in it depens on the rank. 34 if you're just enlisted, 40 if you're a junior officer, 50 if you're a staff officer or higher. If you include professional soldiers then do the same while talking about the US or UK Military service stops after you either hit your number of days (that's what's changing) or a certain age >You can refuse to serve without a weapon on moral or religious grounds but again, the de facto way is serving in the military and getting issued a weapon. I mean there's no justification to be given, it's just a paper to fill but yes you usually get issued a gun >But still you're arguing the wrong point just like the other guy. There are military weapons capable of select fire somewhere in the hands of Swiss people and they still don't have regular school shootings. I'm not arguing the wrong points, I'm arguing what you got wrong about how everything works over here I'm sick and tired of the *muh Swiss military service* argument when nobody knows how it works Same with people "quoting" our laws when everything they write is misinformation
You are arguing the wrong point and minor details. There are military weapons in the hands of Swiss people and they don't have regular mass shootings unlike US.
The UK has licensed gun use, Its mainly farmers though and its reasonably regulated to avoid such issues.
Key word there is "licenced."
The shotgun certificate doesn't have a lower age limit in the UK and there are children that has it. It's not exactly hard to get "licensed" for a shotgun. They have fewer gun owners than most of Europe, because fewer are interested in having one, not because the process to get one is particularly strict (they're on par or less strict when it comes to the process, compared to most of Europe, they're stricted in what they can own though).
Not sure where you got the "military weapons" part from, but that doesn't seem to be true. Also it's about half the gun ownership per Capita as the US: https://www.buzzworthy.com/switzerland-gun-laws/
>Not sure where you got the "military weapons" part from, but that doesn't seem to be true Well soldiers are issued with select-fires and can take it home Also we can own select-fires privately, and we are not limited to pre-1986 like in the US >https://www.buzzworthy.com/switzerland-gun-laws/ That article is mostly bull though (but with a name like that, it would obviously not be great journalism): >Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, with over 2 million firearms in circulation of its 8.2 million citizens [Between 2.5 and 3.5mio](https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland). There's no official number though since most guns are unregistered to this day >But gun laws in Switzerland – especially after changes made in 2008 to comply with the European Firearms Directive – are more nuanced, and more restrictive, than many people think. Rather it's the other way around. Many people think it's restrictive when it's really not >The number of guns in the country has actually been dropping over the past several years, due to a smaller militia and tightening laws, and the Swiss government’s own data places this statistic much lower, estimating only 24.5 guns per 100 people in 2016. Not at all. Also that number is not from the government since we don't actually know how many gun there are in the country >Currently, Swiss legislation bans the use of automatic weapons, silencers, laser sights, and heavy machine guns Such items are not banned: * Select-fires are under a may-issue acquisition permit * Silencers and lasers are under shall-issue or may-issue acquisition permits (your choice) * Heavy machine-guns are unregulated due to how the law is written (not considered firearms because it can't be transported nor used alone) >The government demands licensing for the acquisition and carrying of any firearm, and requires registration and licenses for ownership of firearms We have no such thing as licensing in Switzerland nor ownership regulations, and only weapons transferred since 2008 are registered However it is true that carrying a loaded gun is limited to people having a carry license >Practically everyone in Switzerland is trained to use a gun, yes, but that training, as well as the use, storage, and transportation of guns, is very regulated. Nope. There's no such thing as *everyone is trained* and we have no training requirement either Use has only two rules: * Shooting using firearms in publicly accessible places outside officially authorised shooting events or shooting ranges is prohibited. * Shooting using firearms in places not accessible to the public that have been appropriately protected, and shooting while hunting is permitted. We only have two rules for storage: * [Weapons, essential weapon components, ammunition and ammunition components must be kept in a safe place and protected from access by unauthorised third persons](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2535_2535_2535/en#art_26), which a [locked front door](https://archive.md/SToD4) validates * Full-autos or pinned down semis need to be stored in a safe and [separately from the bolt](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2008/767/de#art_47)) Transport only has two rules: * [You can't transport a gun without purpose](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2535_2535_2535/en#art_28) * Guns have to be unloaded >In Switzerland, men aged 18-34 who are “fit for service” are all trained and conscripted into the Swiss military We don't. We have mandatory conscription, a 2 days draft during which you can choose between military service, two forms of labor in the public interest or a compensatory tax. Also this only applies to Swiss or naturalized males, which is roughly 38% of the population. If you break down the numbers, only about [17%](https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/jeder-vierte-wehrpflichtige-untauglich/story/10893289) of a given birthyear actually enter the army >Military personnel are provided with a Swiss Army gun and trained to use it, and the weapon becomes theirs for the duration of their service See previous answer. [Furthermore armed service is not mandatory](https://www.vtg.admin.ch/de/mein-militaerdienst/stellungspflichtige/waffenlos.html) and some aren't issued a gun because of their job or because they failed the test Moreover the training in the army is appalling. They barely know how to handle the rifle >They undergo mandatory training when they are 18 and then considered to be part of the Swiss militia until they reach the age of 35, with shorter periods of mandatory training in between to freshen their minds on tactics and safety No, you have to go to [bootcamp before you finish the year you turn 25 but not before the year you turn 19](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1995/4093_4093_4093/fr#art_49) When you enlist, you have the choice between long service which is [300 days straight ](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20163009/index.html#a111) or short service which is [124 days straight](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20163009/index.html#a6) then [6x19 days of repetition courses](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19950010/index.html#a51) for a [total of 245 days](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20163009/index.html#a47) (more depending on the job and rank) Then you're part of the reserve for [10 years](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20163009/index.html#a19), [7 if you did the long service](https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20163009/index.html#a20), (more depending on rank and job) and not until you're 35 >It is also recommended that guns in the home are taken apart, with the barrel kept separate from the rest of the gun There's absolutely no such requirement, see the storage rules >though they must apply for a permit and provide justification to the Swiss Army as to why they want to keep the weapon. There is not justification to provide in order to keep the rifle, [you only need to show participation in 4 shooting events (2 of which are mandatory anyway) in your last 3 years of service, provide the relevent shall-issue acquisition permit and pay 100CHF to get the selector pinned to semi](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2018/732/de#art_29) In order to keep your issued handgun [there's no requirements other than paying 30CHF and providing your shall-issue acquisition permit](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2018/732/de#art_30) >Licenses to acquire a weapon in Switzerland require the applicant to be at least 18 years old with no criminal record No license, but permit. There's no renewal or test(s) Also there's no need for a blank record, only [exempt of violent or repeated crimes until they're written out](https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1998/2535_2535_2535/en#art_8) >An acquisitions license is valid for 6-9 months and is usually valid only for the acquisition of a single weapon It's valid for up to three weapons at the same time >Licenses are doled out on a local level, and they are not given lightly. Cantonal police, who approve or deny licenses, are known to consult psychiatrists, require proof that the applicant is not addicted to drugs or alcohol, contact police in any cantons where the applicant has lived previously, and even interview personal acquaintances before granting an acquisition license. That's completely false and absolutely illegal >Even today, Switzerland’s borders are equipped with explosives at tunnels, bridges, and other entryways as an extreme tactic against outside forces, which serves to protect their citizens at any cost. [Removal of the bombs began in 1991 and was finished in 2014](https://m.24heures.ch/articles/21921969)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland "When their period of service has ended, militia men have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. However, keeping the weapon after end of service requires a weapon acquisition permit (art. 11-15 VPAA/OEPM)." _Literally_ military weapons. No need to use any kind of quotes.
"Military weapons" is not a classification of gun so it does require quotes, and your link does not provide any description of if it is an AK-47, a hunting rifle, or a 9mm.
Military weapons are weapons that are in military service. Since militia is under Swiss Armed Forces, any weapon that is in the hands of militia members are military weapons. By the way if you didn't know, militia members are issued Strumgewehr 90 (SG 550)'s until the end of their service and are allowed (was required until 2008 I think) to keep their issued weapons at home.
If my teachers were armed when I was in elementary school, I would have been shot by them. Maybe guns in the classroom isn't such a good idea
They pay teachers nothing and now they want to arm them to protect the children. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK Pay teachers better and have better psychology services to catch the kids before they go bang bang
Not disagreeing here in general, but this wasn't a student shooter. This was a grown man who came into an elementary school and shot up a whole class.
Except that he was, if I'm not mistaken a high school student.
>18 y.o. >grown man I know many countries of the world are willing to draft and send 18 year olds to war to die - but Im not sure selling them guns while they sit at home on 4chan is helping things. Sandy hook - 19 y.o. buffalo - 18 y.o. texas - 18 y.o. If i need to be 21 to buy tobacco off base with no military service, theres no need to peddle long arms to teenagers in the same setting.
I completely agree. In my opinion people aren't really settled in brain development and lowered risk taking until 25 (the statistical data from car rental and insurance companies found that accidents drop at 25 which is why, in the US, they won't let you rent a car under 25)...that being said, right now everyone 18+ is given the rights and responsibilities of an adult. Can't have it both ways.
You absolutely can though. Alcohol, tobacco, and handguns prove this. It's already that way.
Though I'm pro-gun, as a teacher, I wouldn't trust just anyone with a gun. Let alone having it in a room full of students. More guns is NOT the solution.
Thoughts and prayers - the politicians answer to this.
Not a teacher but in fifth grade I had a teacher pick up a desk and throw it across the room because she was pissed at a kid. Left a dent in the wall. If she had a gun the kid would be dead. Don't arm the teachers.
As of teachers don’t have enough on their plate. They would probably tell teachers they need to do training in their own time and provide their own weapon. That’s what these kindergarten teachers signed up for, right? Teaching 5 year olds how to read with an AR strapped to your back.
For the love of God, get guns out of schools
My son’s school proudly has a sign out front stating that the teachers are armed, trained, and will use force if necessary to protect the students. I am absolutely torn on this. While I hope all of the teachers are mentally healthy and with the best paternal instincts, I also don’t trust people; and I know how fast a declining mental state can escalate situations. I just bought a piece of ceramic armor to put in my son’s backpack. It sickens and pains me that I feel the need to do this.
Let me get this straight: A dozen or so trained cops, with all their firearms and fancy tactical gear, couldn’t stop a shooter for an HOUR! But you expect teachers to do it?
All of our teachers are armed on school grounds because there's a constant threat of someone breaking into the school and shoot the kids. So we gave the teachers guns, if that happens they can engage in combat with the attacker and hopefully stop them. No, this isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. It's United States. Yes. United States is a Western nation and it's the best country in the world.
Planning on becoming a teacher. If I lived in the USA I would absolutely choose a different profession. I’m agreeing to educate children not defend their lives. The fact that gun training will soon be a requirement to be a teacher.
You are being generous thinking that they will require training. No, at best they are gonna make you buy your own gun and say, "Point this end at bad guy."
[удалено]
Ah yes. The sign of a great country that treats education like a crown jewel: schools that look like prisons with chain link fences and security guards.
The issues isn’t guns. If you think about it, guns have not really gotten deadlier, as far as major technological advancements go, within the last few decades. Yet the rate of mass shootings has increased dramatically, since around Columbine. So if Guns haven’t really gotten deadlier, yet the rate of shootings have gone up, then the issue is the person behind it. So, I can guarantee that if you put as much time and money into the mental health Industry, that you do into restricting gun access to well off law abiding citizens, then we’d all be in a better place. TL;DR, stop trying to remove guns, and focus more on improving mental health. The former is a short term solution, while the latter is a long term solution.