But a referendum on Feb. 13 will decide whether the Swiss should go on keeping their guns at home or store them in public arsenals. Lately, yes votes for the arsenal bill have led public opinion — 45 percent support it versus 34 percent who oppose, plus a wide undecided margin, according to a poll from early January.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Oh Noes!! How Will the Swiss Protect Themselves?!?
And where will gunloons find another myth?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh no! Another foreign country enacts gun control to prove how it doesn’t change crime rates, murder rates, and suicide rates. Sooner or later, you guys are going to have to give up.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I read the article and I didn't know that Switzerland had so many deaths per capita due to firearms.(I did know that there were a lot of guns there, however.)
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed, Andy. Where there are guns, there are gun deaths. You can count on it.
ReplyDelete@mikeb:
ReplyDeleteBut there's no direct relationship between the number of guns and the number of gun deaths. Look at the top 7 countries for firearm-related murder rates above the US:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
Compared to the gun ownership rates:
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Lists-of-countries-by-gun-ownership
Note those countries above us on the list of gun-related homicides all have far, far fewer guns per capita. They all have far stricter gun control laws, too.
Kinda throws a wrench in the idea that guns are a direct cause of firearm-related murder rates, eh? Perhaps there's some other factors with a much more direct effect?
...Orygunner...
One of the myths surrounding Switzerland is that everybody, everywhere is running around with guns. It's simply untrue.
ReplyDeleteYou can't take your militia weapon and go plink in the woods with your buddies. And the Swiss have pretty strict gun control including registration.
"Note those countries above us on the list of gun-related homicides all have far, far fewer guns per capita. They all have far stricter gun control laws, too."
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this argument is that having strict gun control and being capable of enforcing it are two separate things. For instance, Mexico has very strict gun laws. They also forbid prostitution and drugs. Laws that aren't enforced won't work.
You have to wonder why Orygunner believes it acceptable to compare the US to what are third world countries. The reason is obvious: when we compare the US to other first world, industrialized nations--we wind up dead last.
@Jadegold: What is your reason for eliminating third world countries from the comparison? Could it be that it disproves the "more guns = more crime / less guns = less crime" theory of gun control?
ReplyDeleteIf you suggest that the primary cause of gun-related crime is guns, or lack of gun control, or even lack of enforcement, I can disprove you with more counter-examples than you can use to try and make your case.
The reason is simple: Guns don't CAUSE gun-related crime, guns are only a tool used by violent criminals. There are many, many more factors with a DIRECT effect on firearm-related crime rates than guns or gun control have ever proven to be.
...Orygunner...
O: The reason is quite simple. In most Third World countries, laws of any kind tend not to be enforced. You also have a problem with police forces that are ill-equipped, ill-trained and often corrupt and incapable (or unwilling) of enforcing any law.
ReplyDeleteSo, why are we at the bottom of industrialized nations when it comes to gun crime?
Orygunner, I don't say gun availability is the "primary" cause. I say it's one of a number of factors, but it's the most concrete one about which something could most easily be done. We're already working on keeping violent people in jail and improving the shitty education system, we're already trying to create jobs and deal with the drug problem.
ReplyDeleteI say we also have to do something about gun availability. And, as Jadegold sagely pointed out, if yuo resist that by comparing the States to a bunch of third world countries, you're wrong. It's that simple.
Jadegold asked:
ReplyDelete"So, why are we at the bottom of industrialized nations when it comes to gun crime?"
Poverty? The war on drugs? Disparity in education and other opportunities for underprivileged communities? Our culture?
I've already disproven that the number of guns themselves or their availability in a society is a primary factor. Why are you wanting to rule out third world countries? Do their causes of violent crime differ so much from ours?
I did see someone suggested somewhere recently that countries with lower levels of violent crime have less disparity between the rich and the poor, I'd like to investigate that possible effect.
Why do we keep running around and around the fact that we don't have JUST a "gun crime" problem, we have a VIOLENT crime problem. When you narrow your scope to just gun-related crime, you're not addressing the cause, only a symptom of the problem.
...Orygunner...
Mikeb wrote:
ReplyDelete"Orygunner, I don't say gun availability is the "primary" cause. I say it's one of a number of factors, but it's the most concrete one about which something could most easily be done. "
OK, I'm going to ask this clearly, and plainly, because I haven't gotten an answer yet:
Do you have ANY evidence where limiting gun availability to ANY degree has actually been PROVEN to do ANYTHING? Where violent firearm-related crime rates went DOWN as a proven result of restricting availability of firearms?
...Orygunner...
O: Problem is, we lead (or are near the top) the industrialized nations in most areas that are considered good or favorable. We have lower unemployment, a higher standard of living, generally better education, etc.
ReplyDeleteEven industrialized nations have the problems you describe: drug use, poverty, income inequality.
So, your theory kinda goes buh-bye.
O: Judging by your comments on correlation and causation, it's fairly apparent you understand neither term.
ReplyDeleteFor example, does smoking cigarettes cause lung ailments?
O: "Do you have ANY evidence where limiting gun availability to ANY degree has actually been PROVEN to do ANYTHING? Where violent firearm-related crime rates went DOWN as a proven result of restricting availability of firearms?"
ReplyDeleteYes. There are quite anumber of examples. Take NYC, for instance. Or Chicago.
Orygunner resorts to the final refuge of the frustrated gun-rights advocate, demanding irrefutable and universally agreed-upon PROOF.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid the best we can do is "strong correlation." I know that's not good enough for you because you've got your mind made up.
About comparing ourselves to otehr industrialized nations when trying to get a fair picture, I'd simply say we have more in common with Canada than Yemen. But again, you need to make that other comparison to support your already determined conclusion.