Sunday, September 20, 2009

John Lott on the Swiss Gun Debate

John Lott published a post on the Swiss gun debate which includes a wonderful video which can be viewed here courtesy of the World Radio Switzerland site.

The main protagonist of the video is a Swiss man who explains the law in his country under which young men are required to do military service and keep their rifles at home after being discharged. He describes a moving experience he'd had while visiting one of the Jewish holocaust sites, after which he became more convinced than ever of the need for an armed citizenry in order to prevent tyrannical government actions against them. He sounded amazingly like many American gun owners, same rationale, same world view.

I wondered if in spite of the estimated 500,000 men who keep their military rifles at home, if the passionate ones, the ones who participate in the shooting event shown in the video, for example, are actually a small percentage. I think that's probably the case, just like it is in the U.S., a small but very vocal minority.

The opposing view was presented by a man active in an organization called Group for Switzerland Without an Army. He said they have studies that show the connection between the readily available firearms in Swiss homes and the acts of abuse of those firearms, referring to the 300 or so deaths per year, many by suicide. He goes on to say gun availability is not the only factor, but it is a significant one.

It is fascinating that they have the exact same discussion over there that we have here.

What I didn't understand is Professor Lott's comment, "Someone should really do some serious research on the questions raised here." Is that to say the Swiss studies are not serious? Is that to say the fact that Swiss guns in homes do far more harm that good is not as important as being prepared for fighting against the government if that becomes necessary?

What's your opinion? Is it realistic to think that armed citizens could prevent government abuse if the government really wanted to abuse? I really don't think so. I call this type of thinking, grandiose victimism. It's a fantasy in which one imagines oneself bravely fighting against overwhelming odds, perhaps winning like the fabled American colonists did against the British oppressors, but more likely losing, but going down in a wonderful blaze of glory. What's your opinion?

Please leave a comment.

14 comments:

  1. "It is fascinating that they have the exact same discussion over there that we have here."

    What's even more fascinating is that with even such a relatively low number of deaths, the gun control advocates still aren't satisfied.

    I bet if the US only had 300 gun deaths per year, the Brady Campaign would still claim that's too many.

    "Is it realistic to think that armed citizens could prevent government abuse if the government really wanted to abuse? "

    Armed citizens are only one part of a successful fight against government abuse. It takes all kinds of people to prevent government abuse. The guys with the guns are the last resort.

    "It's a fantasy in which one imagines oneself bravely fighting against overwhelming odds, perhaps winning like the fabled American colonists did against the British oppressors, but more likely losing, but going down in a wonderful blaze of glory."

    You make the same misconception many people make. They watch too much Red Down, read too much Turner Diaries, and create this vision of revolution where a bunch of pot-bellied guy in badly fitting camo charge down the street toward a bunch of masked ATF/UN stormtroopers, creating some sort of modern reinterpretation of the original revolution. In reality, revolution in America will be nothing like that.

    Revolution in America would be comprised of a lot of politicians and "useful idiots" being shot in the back while getting their mail or going to the bathroom; more than likely by the very people charged with protecting them.

    It would be government buildings being blown up, government employees being held hostage or even outright killed for being an accessory to tyranny.

    And the scariest part of all is the military and police won't be there to act as the governments attack dog. Just like during Hurricane Katrina, those charged with protecting the interests of the government will instead look out for their own interests. And many soldiers and police officers will actually uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    There won't be a blaze of glory. Just months of shooting and explosions until one side finally gives up or runs out of bodies. Whichever comes first.

    Neither side wants to die. Especially the politicians. That was pretty evident when Nancy Pelosi almost broke down in tears the other day.

    And that's how armed citizens prevent government abuse. By constantly reminding even our most brazen politicians of their mortality, should they get aspirations for tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. . . . perhaps winning like the fabled American colonists did against the British oppressors . . .

    "Fabled"?

    Hate to break it to you, Mikeb, but that actually happened. The most modern, powerful army in the world at the time had its ass handed to it by a ragtag collection of farmers.

    Perhaps you noticed that this isn't just centuries-old history, either. Right now, the most powerful, modern army in the world--with international help--has tried for almost 8 years to pacify two areas in the world where some people wish for there to be no pacification. That army has its hands full, and depending on whom you talk to, may very well not accomplish the mission in either place, despite no lack of courage and ability of the troops.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Due to the law requiring Swiss men to serve in the military, there are a large amount of weapons available to use. While you pointed out that there are 300 suicides a year, what kind of data is available for the amount of crimes committed by these same citizen soldiers? Due to a better educational system, government support systems, and smaller communities, I would guess the figure would be low.
    One of the reasons why the conscription and the military service has continued in Switzerland is due to that country not sending these very soldiers to fight in the United State’s imperial wars throughout the world or even to peace keeping operations in Africa or the Middle East.
    Switzerland did not even take sides in the Second World War and was not a member of the United Nations until 2002.
    You are right to think that an armed population would be able to prevent a government from abusing its power. The armed militias is the US are all known to the government and would be the fist ones targeted in any future martial law imposed by the government is response to the next terrorist attack.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AztecRed. That's one helluva comment. It was almost like a blueprint or instructions. Did you get a little carried away? Are you supposed to be talking like that to a "non-believers?"

    I just watched that Nancy Pelosi speech you referred to. I can see why you took it personally when she said we should curb the rhetoric or else be prepared to be responsible for the inciting that results.

    Are you prepared for that? Or are you into that individual responsibility business which says that if some red neck with an IQ of 75 and an arsenal at home reads your comment and decides to act it out, you would bear none of the responsibility, only he would.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Aztec's description was well written, and explained things very effectively, but other than that, it was nothing that someone looking for ideas about a new American Revolution couldn't have found in any of dozens of other places.

    In putting that information out there, he would be no more responsible for what someone else does with it than Einstein's publication of the E=MC^2 equation is responsible for nuclear proliferation.

    Besides, do you really have such a low opinion of your readership that you think it includes "some red neck with an IQ of 75 . . . "? Should my feelings be hurt?

    ReplyDelete
  6. 300 out of half a million and he's complaining.

    He sounds about as out of touch with reality as you are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Did you get a little carried away? Are you supposed to be talking like that to a "non-believers?"

    I often read that an armed citizenry can't hold it's own against a tyrannical government, but rarely does anyone step in to explain how an armed citizenry actually works in the modern age.

    "Are you prepared for that? Or are you into that individual responsibility business which says that if some red neck with an IQ of 75 and an arsenal at home reads your comment and decides to act it out, you would bear none of the responsibility, only he would."

    There are already scores of books and websites out there about the subject freedom fighting, revolution, etc. If my comment weren't there, they'd simply find inspiration elsewhere. If they decide to act on it, that's their responsibility.

    ReplyDelete
  8. By the way, Mikeb--about this:

    I call this type of thinking, grandiose victimism.

    I don't presume to represent anyone else's position, but speaking personally, I'm not planning to be anyone's victim, grandiose or otherwise. The idea is for the would-be oppressors to be the victims.

    ReplyDelete
  9. beowulf, I'm glad your fantasy does not include going down in a blaze of glory, because that would really be sick.

    About the responsibility thing, this is something we seem to disagree on. I think we all need to take more responsibility about how our actions and words affect others. That goes for the "hate-radio" guys as well as people who comment on blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. MikeB,

    Do you really mean this?
    I think we all need to take more responsibility about how our actions and words affect others.

    So when your support of gun control laws means another woman is raped because she couldn't use a firearm to defend herself, do you share responsibility?

    When another store clerk is killed because gun control laws you support means that he couldn't afford a firearm to protect himself, do you share responsibility?

    When there is another home invasion and the family is terrorized or killed, do you share responsibility?

    There are two sides to the responsibility. You keep focusing on the actions of the pro-firearm side and how our actions contribute to the problem.

    Do you recognize your contribution?

    ReplyDelete
  11. beowulf, I'm glad your fantasy does not include going down in a blaze of glory, because that would really be sick.

    Hmm--so to give thought to a possible future scenario, while fervently hoping it never takes place, is to indulge in a "fantasy"?

    While you may be glad that I'm not planning on "going down in a wonderful blaze of glory," I suspect you're less pleased that what I have in mind is taking the other SOBs "down in an ignominious blaze of inglory."

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am having a big disconnect with all these posts, including John Lott's.

    Switzerland allows everyone to keep weapons at home but Switzerland took the ammunition away. Bullets used to be given to every home by the government but Switzerland decided to take the bullets back. You now have to buy bullets at the range when you go shooting and you have to use them all at the range. Only something like 2500 people are allowed to keep ammunition at home.

    This is a relatively recent change in Switzerland's gun laws, made within the last 10 years or so.

    You'll note in the WRS original article: "Roughly 200 thousand people come out to target practice all across the country, ammunition is provided by the government."

    So, is the issue now "Switzerland wants to take the guns back too?"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Anonymous, Thanks for those clarifications on the situation in Switzerland.

    beowulf, What you said about "has tried for almost 8 years to pacify two areas in the world," made me wonder.

    Just like Viet Nam in my generation, I question if the real intent is to "pacify" or to win, even. I wonder if the real intent is to drag out a useless war in order to use the weapons on a major scale thereby necessitating producing more and more sophisticated models. This is what our friend Il Principe talks about, the Military Industrial Complex is behind all this. Those of us who believe the troops are fighting for freedom or protecting liberty, or all that other patriotic stuff, I believe, are being duped.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Excellent video from Switzerland. A real eye opener.

    ReplyDelete