This is the problem with statistics and people who are desperate to prove their point at all costs.

I see two alleged facts. You are trying to imply a causal relationship when there is a possibilty that none may exist. At best you have shown that a correlation can exist.

Did you ever stop to think that during this time policing numbers have gone down. The Bobby on the beat is less frequently seen. Even twenty years ago they were more common than they are now. Believe it or not it has been shown that Officer Plod has a huge affect on crime. Unfortunately people think that reducing staffing levels is a cost effective way of cutting government spending. I'd be curious as to how this works out in the long run once the true cost of crime is factored into the overall equation. BTW, those police constables didn't carry guns and most of the time they didn't need them.

Again you have given examples of two observed events that have occurred in dissimilar subsets. If you want to imply a causal relationship, the best that you can do in this case is to observe that in areas of high gun crime it is more likely that there will be bans on firearms. If your premise was correct then you should be able to find isolated rural settings where guns were banned and then gun crime went up. In your examples, the densely populated urban areas are where crime is likely to fluctuate based on other social factors like drug use, unemployment, etc. Taking away guns doesn't cause these things to worsen and yet these things do cause crime to worsen. I'm betting that when crime goes up that gun crime will go up as well.

Please, we don't mind intelligent discourse, but this hyper radical, borderline mindless rhetoric needs to be brought under control. As much as your prose flows nicely, it is painful to read as you do not seem to actually think through what you are saying most of the time. Do you actually read your posts for content before you click on the submit button?

Oh, and not everyone who disagrees with you is an imbecile or a traitor. Most of the arguments I have seen proposed to you in response to your posts have been fairly reasonable and respectful. Why can't you return the favour? Usually this kind of bullying behaviour indicates a certain level of distrust in ones own argument or grasp of the situation. Bludgeoning other people verbally won't make you right and it doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

I've said it before and I will say it again,
Good luck.

__________________
Many men, of course, became extremely rich, but this was perfectly natural, and nothing to be ashamed of, because no one was really poor -- at least no one worth speaking of. - Douglas Adams

Obviously this guy is supposed to be a gun criminal, he's wearing a hoody and a baseball hat. How do I tell him apart from a law abiding registered gun owner with a hoody?

Probably responsible gun owners wouldn't be seen with a hoody, so here's a picture for a law abiding gun user.

See, now we have some balance.

You can also tell that hoodie guy is a baddie because he is out of focus and therefor more of an unknown. We are supposed to fear the unknown.

A responsible owner wouldn't be caught dead being so out of focus. Just like the second guy above. He is just intimidating but obviously not a baddie.

Additionally, whilst the hoodie is pointing his gun at you, the other chap is pointing his gun over your shoulder at someone (no doubt another hoodie) behind you.

Regret you are probably right. Is there a lock-down vote button?

Otherwise this will degenerate...

Further...

Maybe not. But still irresponsible. Needs to learn better 'muzzle control'.

Now did he or didn't he shoot an arrow through a bright red apple ?



The vote's over y'all.. the Rösti Graben has spoken, nothing more to be added.. Good Evening

punkt schluss

Quickly ? Things in the past often have changed within less than 5 years, and so you can expect them to change this time as well.

The graphics are misleading as done by Districts. Quite many towns and villages like Uster, Fällanden, Greifensee and Schwerzenbach voted YES and here I just took the Bezirk Uster. So that the real picture rather is different.

I did not find the looked for statistics, but think that places like Bülach, Regensdorf, Opfikon-Glattbrugg, Kloten and so on also voted Yes. And do not forget that many towns in No-voting Cantons also voted Yes.

To say it clearly, those who launched the initiative were fools. Had they spared the shooting clubs and given them a role in their plan, they might have won. But with some details of the initiative targetting the shooting clubs, they created an opposition, powerful in rural areas throughout the country.

what on earth are the benefits of keeping the guns at home in the house in a domestic situation instead of in a local armoury that is monitored and supervised?

It might have been tradition but everything moves on in the light of changing circumnstances - can't the Swiss do that?

I read some quote from someone high up in the army who said that it was a matter of trust between the public and the army, and that the army was the backbone of the country................

What shit is that?

Perhaps though there are some benefits in having them available for easy suicide or family financial squabbles...............?

Jerry

The assassination-attempts came BEFORE the anti-Armenian actions. The "Genocide" you mention grew out of a police-action to find the wannabe-assassins. Enver Pasha and Talaat Pasha and Djemal Pasha were the leaders of a reform-movement actually.

To disarm locals at gun-point and then shoot them is a tactic followed by many (among them indeed the army of the Turkish Empire). But you mentioned this as if there was a "disarmament" in one year and that Genocide in another. What you now present is completely different from your original statement.

"Hey you can't shoot me with that - it's banned!! "

BANG BANG BANG!

Not quite.

Bülach: 53.41% No
Regensdorf: 59.71% No
Opfikon: 56.56% No
Kloten: 57.09% No

Source

Thanks, even if I am really very surprised !

I admittedly tend to forget that the Opfikon half of Opfikon-Glattbrugg is a rather conservative village, while a majority in Glattbrugg cannot vote as not being CH-citizens

But please tell me your source ! I was tracing but did not find it the WEBsite of the Zürcher Oberländer only covered the Oberland of course !

Weapons don't kill people. It's the people who use the weapons.

In the wrong (or right) hands, anything can be improvised a weapon.

Cheers,
Nick

Strange... the link is supposed to go right to the canton's website. I'll try again:

http://www.wahlen.zh.ch/abstimmungen.../gemeinden.php

or the full link as text:

http://www.wahlen.zh.ch/abstimmungen/2011_02_13/resultate/gemeinden.php

hope this helps

Thanks ! Now, let's have a look to the Yes-towns :

Aeugst am Albis -- a real surprise !
Bonstetten -- a surprise as well
Hedingen
Mettmenstetten
Rifferswil
Wettswil am Albis

Kilchberg -- usually righist, but of course very urban
Oberrieden
Thalwil -- to be expected in view of its Stadtzürcher people

Männedorf
Stäfa
Zollikon -- all three conservative but modern

Fällanden
Greifensee
Schwerzenbach
Uster

Winterthur Altstadt
Winterthur Oberwinterthur
Winterthur Töss
Winterthur Veltheim
Winterthur Wülflingen
Winterthur Mattenbach

Zürich, all "Kreise" / 4+5 78% Yes
but even middle-of-the-road Kreis 2 63% Yes

all in all quite a clear result for the Canton,
and possibly a basis for some Cantonal laws
to become fact in the future !

I take some comfort in knowing that amidst Winterthur's sea of "Yes-towns," Seen (where my relations live) was a "No" Gemeinde.