[Closed] Not again...(US gun shootings)

The shootings or the predictable media circus that legitimises the gunmen?

Both, though I don't get the comment about legitimising the the gunman? I don't think previous reporting, whilst stating why a nutter has done what he's done, has made a case for them being in the right?

Motor vehicles are legal here and yet some use them to kill other road users, by reducing speed with limiters or other means would save lives, yet nothing is done and most people would refuse to have a limiter fitted as they see it as their right to speed, just like owning a gun in america.

the story will occupy the media for the next few days untiol a copy cat idiot starts again to get his/her media attention

I think what this thread needs is someone to make a comparison between a car and a gun. They're clearly very alike in their intention and uses.

Everyday people die in all sort of circumstances ... 🙄

Yes they do chewy, but this is, again, someone "normal" going out with a lethal weapon and the specific intent to shoot and kill people. But different from having a piano drop on your head.

How long before we hear... 'The weapon(s) were legally held'

As was observed before - if the Sandy Hook shootings weren't enough to break the deadlock, nothing would be. It has been decided, by a majority of the US population, that all these shootings of innocents are indeed a price that can and will be (repeatedly) paid to preserve the right to bear arms, and however insane we or anyone else thinks it is, significant change is simply not going to happen.

Edit.

This guy gave advance warning too and several people were telling him the best way to kill rooms full of people on line and what weapons to use. When will America learn?

RIP to those that lost their lives today for no reason.

SSRIs .....

Nice to see the usual apologists for the US gun culture creep out of the slime again, even though most Americans [i]would[/i] support tighter controls...

Go and look in a mirror at yourselves, today of all days, look at what you are...

As Obama said after Charleston, looking tired and sick of this shit,

" “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.”

it is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it. And at some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively."

even though most Americans would support tighter controls...

The problem however is money, the gun lobby have plenty of it. Too many US politicians can't afford to upset them.

Not sure if you were suggesting I was an apologist, but I'm not - you may well be right about the majority supporting tighter controls but it doesn't seem like that to me. I'm more of a defeatist, really - I think the opposition to significant controls is just too strong to make a dent in.

I wish it wasn't so - but I believe it's mostly about power, to be self-reliant - e.g. hunting - and to defend oneself against threats both real - e.g. self defence, wild animals - and (more often) imagined - e.g. home invasions, government tyranny - and it's just so ingrained now that I don't think it can be shifted. No-one who is attracted to power wants to give it up. Legitimate reasons for gun ownership blur into appeals to tradition, paranoia and outright power fantasies, and reaching a compromise is never going to get close enough to outright banning to make a significant difference to the availability of weapons.

You can sense Obama's quiet exasperation as he no doubt looks back on failure to introduce any meaningful gun control. (Not that I blame him personally...it's an almost impossible task.)

Somehow this has become routine. The reporting is routine. My response here at this podium is routine... We’ve become numb to this.

Found on Facebook:

[url= https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/10/mass_shootings.pn g" target="_blank">https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/10/mass_shootings.pn g"/> [/img][/url]

I knew it was bad, but good lord that's just mental.

[img] [/img]

The most mental part is when you compare it to other "civilised" countries.

More than 50 shootings last weekend in Chicago. 50. One weeekend.

[url= http://heyjackass.com/ ]

Www.heyjackass.com

Motor vehicles are legal here and yet some use them to kill other road users, by reducing speed with limiters or other means would save lives,

Speed limiters in a car would not stop someone in a car from deliberately driving into a crowd of people and killing them.

Or are you suggesting they should put power limiters on guns, so the bullets are only fired at a power that cannot piece skin?

latest news suggest it's a brit who does not like organised religion. Seems a bit mad to me listening to the radio this morning.

Some worrying stats in that Chicago link. [img] [/img]

Oh if only all the good guys had been carrying guns!!

😯

This *is* a major US city, not Afganistan...
[img] [/img]

From what I read he was born here but moved to the US very young. Not that that really matters.

I find it pretty screwed up that he apparently openly alluded to what he was going to do and, worse, he got "urged on" from some ( http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/oregon-umpqua-community-college-shooting).

Obama seems to genuinely want to do something, unlike alot of the candidates to replace him, and I think he's wholly sincere in his exasperation. That calendar above is pretty sobering. RIP to those murdered.

Or are you suggesting they should put power limiters on guns, so the bullets are only fired at a power that cannot piece skin?

I reckon there wasn't much thought wen't into his post.

The US really needs to wake up to the issues they have with firearms and change the laws. It won't get rid of the issue overnight or altogether but it should have a big enough big impact to matter.

What gets me is that Obama not trying to ban all guns (never going to happen) but put in better/more common sense/restrictions etc on how to get a gun!
But no USA can't have that, every tom, nut job, dick and harry must be able to have a gun

Any a good/funny vid on gun control by Australian comedian Jim Jefferies (little bit sweary)
[url= http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955 ]Gun control[/url]

John Oliver did some interesting segments on the daily show a couple of years back.

The problem however is money, the gun lobby have plenty of it. Too many US politicians can't afford to upset them.

Didn't stop them abolishing the slave trade though, who would have thought that possible considering the money and power of the slave drivers. But you are right, too many cowards in privileged positions unwilling to do the right thing for fear of losing their meal ticket.

It's a shame that the anti-gun lobby don't have such outspoken attention seekers as the pro-gun lobby do in that dim-witted **** Donald Trump.

[quote=slowoldman]Oh if only all the good guys had been carrying guns!!

Which is pretty much what the campus pastor interviewed on the BBC said this morning.. 🙄

The statistic on gun related crime in the US are pretty sobering

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/01/obama-oregon-college-shooting-routine ]Link[/url]

This is the 994th mass shooting in three years

America’s gun problem goes deeper still: on the day of the Newtown shooting, many noted that if that had been the only shooting that day, the day’s death toll from gun violence would have been below the US average.

On average more than 30 people a day are intentional killed by firearms and that's only homicides. If you include accidents and suicides its three times higher

the OP question is how do can this be solved. I honestly dont think it can be solved. How many guns are there in the USA? Even local sheriff dont support the removal of them from society. it would take a much more massive tragic event to change peoples opinions and then the job of getting those guns off the streets would be a lifes work. Shame.

[i]Didn't stop them abolishing the slave trade though, who would have thought that possible considering the money and power of the slave drivers[/i]

Er, take it you've not heard of the US Civil War...

Guns have been a part of American culture since the wild west. Obama has no chance of changing the gun laws, infact the more he criticises them, the more pro-gun many Americans become. More people are saying this wouldn't have happened if everyone was armed. It's beyond belief.
It's a sad state of affairs and just another reminder of what a strange, foreign place the USA is.

Er, take it you've not heard of the US Civil War...

Of course I have heard of It, that wasn't the point.

The point was that someone had the thirst for change, to change something heavily ingrained in the lives of US people, there doesn't seem to be that willingness to put ones neck on the line for a change that is blatantly needed for the good of the people.

I wonder how many people have died from firearm related crimes since the end of the civil war.

Didn't stop them abolishing the slave trade though, who would have thought that possible considering the money and power of the slave drivers.

Well it did. That's why they had to have a war in which three quarters of a million people died, the greatest loss of life of any war in US history, before the US constitution could be amended to abolish slavery.

I don't think another civil war to introduce tighter gun controls is really feasible.

So democracy will continue to be perverted by gun lobby money.

More people are saying this wouldn't have happened if everyone was armed

Of course, in these situations the fact that minorities commit murder is of little comfort.

God can you imagine the carnage in a mass shooting event if a significant number of people were armed ? Nutter starts shooting hero pulls out his gun shoots back second hero hears gun shots behind him pulls out his gun shoots at hero one who now shoots back to defend self further heroes see what they assume are nutters engaged in a massacre and open fire and so on as it ripples out. At some point SWAT turn up and take out the survivors.

I like gun control . If you make gun ownership unlawful then only criminals and the police have guns which means if you see a guy with a gun who aint police you know to avoid them and if the police se a guy with a gun they know immediately he is a baddie and can apprehend him and stop him committing crime. Hunting rifles and shot guns can be an easily and efficiently licenced exception at very low risk.

The "it's two hard practically" argument is rubbish make an announcement then one month amnesty to hand in your guns after which massive crack down by police seizing guns and fining for possession in private and jail for carrying.
Yes a few in the gun industry will lose jobs or have to change jobs but at the moment many are losing lives or suffering life changing events.

300-400 million guns in circulation. If I lived there I'd want one. I think the issue isn't just gun culture, it's American culture in general. In their reality they are superior to the rest of the world in every way. Movies aren't just a form escapist entertainment, it's something that validates their self image.

My brother in law is in the Irish Police and so regularly travels to New York for Saint Patrick's day and various functions. He's a big, physically strong guy, but always comments on how the NYPD are a terrifying bunch of steroid fueled gun nuts. He says they can't relate or talk on any normal level without resorting to film quotes and macho BS, all they are interested in discussing is their guns, workouts and how to choke someone.

They strike me as a culturally backward, poorly educated nation obsessed with superficiality and image (generalising I know). Their attitude to mental health, the prevalence of anti depressants and the power exerted over their health care systems by large pharmaceutical companies seems to compound their problems.

More people are saying this wouldn't have happened if everyone was armed

BBC news this morning was talking to some local pastor at the scene of the shooting. His view was the students should be armed 😳

Oregon is a shall-issue, concealed carry state, with open carrying broadly tolerated too, no firearms licencing, no ownership permits and only basic background checking, and I think also state law specifically designed to prevent localities introducing their own controls. So the "moar guns" brigade should have a hard time with all that. I think just about the only thing they could do to make gun carrying easier, would be to allow it for children or give them away in cereal boxes

(this is a genuine question, not some STW passive aggressive bullshit). Has there actually been a demonstrated case of a mass shooting being prevented by an armed civilian bystander? I can't remember ever hearing of one. I've shot a bit, but put me in the middle of this sort of situation with a gun and I'm probably more likely to fumble it and shoot myself in the balls than shoot the gunman. And put someone like me in a situation where maybe someone's going to get shot or maybe not, and arm them, and it escalates it and probably makes it much more likely that innocent people get shot.

Some of the details of this one are just horrible. And the irony, that the US is obsessed with wiretaps and elint and defeating strong encryption and all that but you can openly post things on a forum and nobody goes "better call the cops", and some people even say "Yeah, go for it". What tyres for school shootings?

Northwind

(this is a genuine question, not some STW passive aggressive bullshit). Has there actually been a demonstrated case of a mass shooting being prevented by an armed civilian bystander?

Yes. Numerous I think. If a mass shooting is prevented then it can't be a mass shooting and hence, it doesn't make for gory sexy news over here, and we don't hear about it.

The right of US citizens to own and use guns as their laws currently seem to allow.
Is written in the blood and tears of the victims.

Just when will the US have had enough of this and stop it!

jimjam have you got an example of one of these numerous incidents?

You could tell how pissed off Obama was. He put it slightly more succinctly - but not that much more than...

"the world is chock full of nutters, but we're the only supposedly civilised country thats mad enough to let them all buy guns!"

Those John Oliver videos quite aptly demonstrate the issues really, a firm belief that "gun control does not work" despite demonstrable evidence to the contrary. I must admit I wasn't aware of the Australian history with guns and subsequent control, very fair play to them.

Perhaps the most telling comment made there was in regards to what was the measure of success for a politician, for the US: getting re-elected, Aus: making a difference. It would take balls of the highest order from many US politicians to stand firm and talk of nothing else but gun control. It would be political suicide, true, but that does not mean it would not work over time with enough people projecting a consistent message.

It did also make me think what the answer to that same question would be from UK politicians, I fear the majority would also trot out the getting re-elected line.

the OP question is how do can this be solved. I honestly dont think it can be solved. How many guns are there in the USA?

This. I don't know as it "cannot" be solved but it will certainly be very difficult. Lobby groups and firearm fetishes aside, the sheer normality of gun ownership would make it as feasible as banning saucepans. An amnesty / crackdown would probably dent it, but you'd almost certainly end up with another civil war. A lot of people would lose their lives before they'd lose their guns.

The enormous gun ownership in the States is down to a minority who own a cupboard full each.

I don't know whether it's a "minority" or not, I expect that's very dependent on geography and local state laws, but you're right in that plenty who like guns [i]really[/i] like them. I dated an American lass for a while, her brother had a collection - a chest at the foot of his bed full of the bloody things. He was college age.

I've shot a bit, but put me in the middle of this sort of situation with a gun and I'm probably more likely to fumble it and shoot myself in the balls than shoot the gunman.

And that's probably true of most people. Some Americans fancy themselves as Bruce Willis in a vest, but the fact of the matter is that gun accidents are way more common than gun crimes. I'd wager that most people with guns have an over-inflated opinion of their ability to use them (oh hey, a car analogy that actually does make sense!).

I knew a Texan guy once, he claimed he had a gun because everyone else had a gun, reckoned he lived in the safest place in the world; no-one would ever pull a gun cos they knew everyone else had one. Bit like the nuclear deterrent I suppose. The flaw in that logic of course is in assuming that you're surrounded by rational, critical-thinking people, and as I said he came from Texas. In his head, if someone pulled a gun he could take them out Clint Eastwood style, rather than do something sensible like running and hiding until the bad man went away. I wouldn't have trusted him to be able to hit a barn door whilst sat on the sneck, let alone come out best in a firefight.

crankboy - Member

jimjam have you got an example of one of these numerous incidents?

Just google. There are plenty. But here's a good [url= http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/college-student-shoots-kills-home-invader/nD9XG/ ]one.[/url]

The enormous gun ownership in the States is down to a minority who own a cupboard full each.

I don't know whether it's a "minority" or not, I expect that's very dependent on geography and local state laws, but you're right in that plenty who like guns really like them

The average across the US is about 30% own guns (I believe that constitutes a minority in everything other than a political election). There is approximately 1 gun per capita which suggests each gun owner has on average 3 guns. Ownership varies widely across different states as you suggested and those with higher gun ownership appear to be those considered more violent.

jimjam - Member

Just google. There are plenty. But here's a good one.

It's really not! The guy who intervened was a US marine sergeant not a civilian, and there's the small matter that there was no evidence it was a mass shooting. Also, one of the victims ended up getting shot several times, apparently by both the invader and the defender- though she did survive. But that's a near miss.

Not to talk down the result, btw, the survivor of the 2 attackers was convicted of attempted rape so it's still a huge difference in outcome. But it did nearly end up with a dead bystander despite being a trained soldier doing the shooting.

Northwind
It's really not! The guy who intervened was a US marine sergeant not a civilian, and there's the small matter that there was no evidence it was a mass shooting

I read he was a student. Is there another version of the story where he's a marine?

Jim Wright sums up the problem quite well (and is qualified to comment more than I)

Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns kill people who don’t have guns.

Therefore, we should ban all guns! No, wait, if we ban all guns then only people with guns will have guns so they’ll kill the people who don’t have the guns and then there will only be people with guns left and then they’ll kill each other because if you ban guns only people with guns will be criminals and when the government comes to get our guns only the criminals will be free because liberty equals guns! Also what about bears? OK, then we should give everybody guns! But if everybody has guns then even criminals will have guns and brown people and yellow people and illegal people and crazy people who don’t love Jesus will have guns and they will break into our houses to steal our guns and rape our women and eat our babies and take our liberty so then police and the military will need bigger guns to keep us safe from those people but then we’ll need even bigger guns because otherwise we won’t be safe from the cops who will use their guns to take our freedom!

[url= http://www.stonekettle.com/ ][/url]

This article gets updated each time there's a mass shooting and the list just keeps growing

Interesting article here

You're right, and surprising too. I'm stunned how low places like New York are, I'd have thought that'd be near the top. Guess that's Hollywood bias for you.

Looking at it and referring to my Bumper Book of Rash Generalisations and Oversimplification, it looks like America's gun problem mostly isn't gangs of black youths popping caps in each other's asses, but rather rednecks downing a couple of cold ones and then yelling "hey Brad, watch this!"

Project has it. Do something about things you can change where you live rather than pointing fingers at the silly people over the pond.

I think the flaw in the arming students/teachers argument is that if I'm intent on killing a large number of people (and I think we can be confident that the perpetrator is going to die in the act too), and I know that I could be cut down before achieving my objective, I'll up the ante and suit myself up and become a suicide bomber.
What you going to do now?

Project has it. Do something about things you can change where you live rather than pointing fingers at the silly people over the pond.

Of course, because making people drive a little bit slower is a far more pressing issue than mass murders. Totally comparable and makes perfect sense.

Oh, no, wait, the other one.

That's quite right JimJam, I mean you only have to look at all the many hundreds of mass shootings we silly sausages with no guns over here don't prevent to see the perfection of the logic.

Project doesn't suggest making people driver slower, he suggests removing the ability to drive fast.

If you look at what kills the most Americans the first step would be to ban drinks containing glucose-fructose syrup.

Project doesn't suggest making people driver slower, he suggests removing the ability to drive fast.

Well, that sounds perfectly safe and also completely negates my argument.

Oh, no, wait, the other one.

thestabiliser

That's quite right JimJam, I mean you only have to look at all the many hundreds of mass shootings we silly sausages with no guns over here don't prevent to see the perfection of the logic.

I'm not defending them you tit. Northwind asked if any mass shootings had been prevented by armed citizens. I simply replied that yes, it has happened.

My mistake, apologies, ya big bum'ole.

I'm stunned how low places like New York are

jimjam - Member

I read he was a student. Is there another version of the story where he's a marine?

Googled the dead criminal's name and found a court report. The original link has the word "apparently" in it about 400 times so I thought I'd have a look. Interesting note- the surviving criminal was convicted of the murder of his mate, in his state if you conspire to commit a felony and a co-conspirator dies, it's the same as if you murdered them. How cool is that?

Though it is a good example if you want to make a case for managed, trained possession. I've always wondered if maybe a route forward could be flattery? Instead of "The gubmint wants to take away my gunz!" you introduce training, you make passing the test a matter of pride, like it is with kids and driving. Maybe allow home ownership without but concealed carry requires skills testing, same way as you can drive a car in a field with no driving licence.

The responsible citizen element would probably be delighted to have a card in their wallet that says "A+ Lone Gunman, 2 minor faults for control and observation"... And it's harder to argue with "By all means have a gun but learn how to use it- because if you ever do need to protect your family, it's not good enough to just own a gun, you need to be disciplined and calm and accurate and safe. DEFEND YOUR DAUGHTER'S VIRGINITY BETTER!"

[i]Coincidentally[/i] that'd make it much harder to get a gun. A big part of the US gun scene does promote safe, responsible ownership already so it'd tie in.

I remember having, let's say gun practicality chats with US motorbikerists on forums. "How do I concealed carry my 1911 on the bike". Don't! Not because Guns Are Bad but because you're wearing gloves that make shooting impossible, you'd probably have the gun inside your 2 piece leathers or inside weather protection, timely access is basically impossible. Meanwhile you're on a bike that can be out of realistic pistol range in seconds, much faster than you can clear and fire. Also, if you fall off your bike onto a gun, it's going to suck remarkably hard, even if you've made it safe- because even an unloaded gun's going to be like landing on an anvil. See that hip holster? You just smashed your femur, well done. Small of back? LOL.

And ya know... Not one of those dudes could have been talked out of it with Guns Are Bad but quite a few were receptive to the practicality argument. It's a bit like promoting bear spray instead of discouraging guns- small guns suck at fighting bears, bear spray is more effective. But the end result is less people wanting guns to protect themselves from bears.

If nothing else, training home "defender" better would reduce accidents, even if it ends up with the exact same amount of murders.

According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.

Thats trained police officers.... 82 bullets out of 100 fired hit something / someone else.... not a good strike rate for the Moar Guns team unless your after volume, not accuracy.

And the percentages are probably lower for the average panniky Joe in the heat of the moment ...

Actually, after so manay of these shootings, I'm with

Do something about things you can change where you live rather than pointing fingers at the silly people over the pond.

Sitting in my office here in Germany is way off me being able to influence gun control in the US, but I can change something locally, thats better use of my time.

Its 2015, its their issue, its within their gift to take it on and do something, its their system to change and their citizens getting slaughtered on the world stage. So USA... whats it going to be?

"I'm not defending them you tit. Northwind asked if any mass shootings had been prevented by armed citizens. I simply replied that yes, it has happened. "
The report of the court hearing does not suggest there was any intent for a mass shooting though or there would have been a conspiracy to murder charge.

Northwind

Interesting note- the surviving criminal was convicted of the murder of his mate, in his state if you conspire to commit a felony and a co-conspirator dies, it's the same as if you murdered them. How cool is that?

And rightly so. If you enter someone's house with someone who intends to rape and murder (even if you don't) then you deserve all that's coming to you.

Northwind

Though it is a good example if you want to make a case for managed, trained possession. I've always wondered if maybe a route forward could be flattery? Instead of "The gubmint wants to take away my gunz!" you introduce training, you make passing the test a matter of pride, like it is with kids and driving. Maybe allow home ownership without but concealed carry requires skills testing, same way as you can drive a car in a field with no driving licence.

Agreed. Despite having shot several hand guns, shot guns, rifles and assault rifles guns scare the shit out of me. If I lived there I'd probably own one, but I'd want as much training as is practically possible or I wouldn't bother.

crankboy

The report of the court hearing does not suggest there was any intent for a mass shooting though or there would have been a conspiracy to murder charge.

The court's job is to convict based on what can be proven beyond doubt. Not to engage in conjecture as to what might have happened. If I was at that party I'd have been thankful that my friend was armed.

Look at that farce that followed the Boston bombings. Turning a leafy suburban street into a war zone with bullets strafing surrounding houses while people were watching TV and eating their dinner. Eventually they managed to kill one and the other got away. Even when they tracked the second guys down and cornered him into a boat in someones back yard they started throwing grenades about. There does seem to be a very relaxed attitude in the states about squeezing the trigger and letting a few go, even amongst the so called proffessionals.

Personally I really don't think i'd feel better if I was down the local shopping mall knowing that the vast majority of strangers around me, alot looking decididly dodgy, were packing heat.

Thats trained police officers.... 82 bullets out of 100 fired hit something / someone else.... not a good strike rate for the Moar Guns team unless your after volume, not accuracy.

And the percentages are probably lower for the average panniky Joe in the heat of the moment .

I think the flaw in the arming students/teachers argument is that if I'm intent on killing a large number of people (and I think we can be confident that the perpetrator is going to die in the act too), and I know that I could be cut down before achieving my objective, I'll up the ante and suit myself up and become a suicide bomber.
What you going to do now?

Easy give people more guns, solves everything haven't you been paying attention.

I wonder what it would take for public opinion to swing towards some sanity...

Not to engage in conjecture as to what might have happened.

That's the job of internet hard men.

jimjam I am not targeting you as a person but am focusing on the argument is not the whole point you made about mass shootings avoided by members of the public pure conjecture . We know that in this case there was no reliable evidence that a mass shooting was avoided because the person involved was not convicted of and apparently not charged with intending to carry out any such crime He was however convicted of the murder of his friend who was Shot by the trained marine .

If I was at a party that was being robbed I may well be happy that a trained marine with a gun and the skills and discipline to use it was about I would not be happy that any random drunk student might have one and decide to give it a go. I would be a lot more happy doing to parties if I knew that no one there had a gun and I could be reasonably sure that even if baddies came they would be unlikely to have access to them.

google "college park ga shooting" to see how common it is for people to die from easy access to guns for that one chance of a save to be made.

jimjam - Member

The court's job is to convict based on what can be proven beyond doubt. Not to engage in conjecture as to what might have happened. If I was at that party I'd have been thankful that my friend was armed.

Yup. But you can see the point I think, leaving other things aside it's a completely useless example of an armed civilian preventing a mass shooting, because there weren't any armed civilians and there's no particular reason to think there was going to be a mass shooting.

as they used to say during the 'Nam era "[i]the most dangerous animal in the world is a 19 year old American with a gun[/i]"

it's a completely useless example of an armed civilian preventing a mass shooting, because there weren't any armed civilians and there's no particular reason to think there was going to be a mass shooting.

Well, I'll acquiesce to your point about civilians, I took the report at face value, but based on what I read ie two armed men seperated the party goers, started counting their bullets and that one was convicted of attempted rape, we can assume their intentions weren't honorable. If we operate on the assumption that they definitley intended to rape the women (based on the conviction) then you have to wonder what they would have done with the witnesses considering they lived a block away.

Anyway, yes. Bad example perhaps. There are others out there where civilians do indeed intervene in mass shootings. That's not to say I believe it's a good idea that an entire populous be armed.

Switzerland - where do folk stand on their gun laws?

All seems to work, country is stuffed full of guns... Interesting as its just across the border from us and we often here shooting practice. There is a small town build for combat training too.

From Wiki
In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles (fully automatic, or "selective fire") stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 models. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.[5][broken citation]

In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the US.[6]

And:
In 2014 there were 173 attempted and completed homicides, of which 18 involved firearms (10.4%). 41 of them were completed, therefore Switzerland had a murder rate of 0.49 per 100,000 population, the lowest raw figure and lowest rate for 33 years, since the start of the nationwide coordinated collection of statistical data, despite a strong growth of inhabitants (from 6.4 million to 8.1 million, +27%) over the same period.[15]

swiss gun laws? all adult males are in the army and obliged to keep a gun at home but not issued with ammunition most follow the army advise and keep the barrel and body separate . All adult males are therefor trained to a professional standard in the use of "their" guns and subject to military discipline in what they do with them . Plus they don't usually have any ammo.
It is illegal to carry a gun in the street.
The Swiss still have had a mass shooting and gun crime though. There are more domestic homicides and suicides with a firearm in Switzerland than pretty much anywhere else in Europe except Finland

can they come at it from a different angle ? circumvent the 2nd amendment right to bear arms by making the ammunition difficult to get hold of and illegal to manufacture. Just a thought like.

I was not confident on the illegal to carry guns in the street in Switzerland point but this appears to be a good summary :-
Carrying of Guns

The carrying of a gun for defensive purposes requires a carrying license, which will be granted only if the applicant is qualified to acquire guns; demonstrates a need for the weapon to protect himself, others, or property against existing dangers; and has passed an exam to test his required theoretical knowledge and practical skill.[50] The theoretical exam tests knowledge of
•criminal provisions on violent crimes and self-defense, and necessity as a justification or excuse;
•federal and cantonal weapons law provisions;
•types of weapons and ammunition; and
•security measures and proper conduct when carrying weapons.[51]

The practical examination tests the applicant’s skill in handling the weapon, including loading, unloading, operating the safety device, and shooting.[52]

A carrying license permits the concealed carrying of a handgun.[53] No carrying license is required for the transporting of an unloaded weapon for legitimate purposes, such as travel to and from the shooting range or hunting environment, as long as the ammunition is kept separate from the weapon.[54]

Apparently the Swiss get really annoyed with the American pro gun lobby trying to use them as support for their stance.