>>>>>>FWIW, violent crime is very low in Switzerland- where there is an assault rifle in almost every home. This isn't just "allowed" in Switzerland, it's a legal obligation for most males aged between 20 and 40. If you're not satisfied with your military weapon, most adults are able to purchase additional firearms. The government used to supply ammo for the weapons as well, but since 2011 you're expected to purchase your own. LOL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So why the difference? One definite issue is that the Swiss are very sensible and proper and the concept of going to a school to shoot the place up is positively un-Swiss. Sheesh, even if you Jaywalk in Switzerland you're likely to be approached and scolded by a passer-by.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You might imagine that nobody brings out a firearm because it would like the OK Corral with automatic weapons firing back from every window, but I don't think that's it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyway, the very sensible Swiss perceive little connection between these firearms and crime and when there was a referendum for tighter gun control in 2011, it was tossed out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks so much for providing a nice argument against Walter's POV.
>>>>>
>>>>>The swiss argument is nonsense. You can't compare switzerland with the US. They are totally different animals.
>>>>>The swiss gun ownership is tightly related to the need to have militia. Swiss men between 20 and 40 are trained with the automatic guns for militia purposes. The founding fathers had the same in mind for the US, but as the US already has a military (the swiss don't), the ownership of guns is not related to the need for forming militia anymore, but rather a very unhealthy addiction to guns.
>>>>>
>>>>>There is a huge difference in ethnic homogeneity of the population, income, social status etc. The US society is not capable to handle guns in a responsible way of this. Make no illusions, even in switzerland there is a debate of gun control, and if mass killing events events happen there, i can assure you that tighter gun laws will be forced through there as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>See http://www.ibtimes.com/us-gun-control-debate-what-can-we-learn-switzerland-732104 for a detailed description of the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>>Walter,
>>>>
>>>>Snip from link:
>>>>"In the case of Aurora, the argument is that Holmes could have been stopped quickly if one or more of the moviegoers had been carrying"
>>>>
>>>>I've a feeling that, in reality, if other people had started shooting it would have ended in an armed equivalent of a bar-room brawl. Just general confusion as to who was shooting at who. Of course, whilst not reducing the level of gun ownership it would reduce the number of gun owners :-}
>>>
>>>I believe that it would have been better if people expressing such idiotic logic should have been aborted before birth.
>>
>>Are you referring to me or them :-}
>
>No you Viv, the ones that really believe in : "In the case of Aurora, the argument is that Holmes could have been stopped quickly if one or more of the moviegoers had been carrying"

They get that idiotic idea from stories like these:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559506/shots-fired-patrons-panic-at-san-antonio-theater/
http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8378732
http://www.woai.com/mostpopular/story/Armed-bystander-stops-stabbing-outside-school/6zTYMpy8pUOeyrbElEBOTQ.cspx
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

In general, I'm with Viv on this one though.