From the BBC
Three people have been killed and seven injured during a shooting at a factory in the town of Menznau. Shooting broke out in the canteen at the Kronospan wood processing plant at around 09:00 (08:00 GMT).
According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, Switzerland ranks third in terms of gun ownership, behind the United States and Yemen. there are more domestic homicides and suicides with a firearm in Switzerland than virtually anywhere else in Europe except Finland.
Sound familiar?
Not really, were not allowed to buy our arms and keep them after our mandatory military service ends..... so no, it does not sound familiar at all.....
ReplyDelete"There are more domestic homicides and suicides with a firearm in Switzerland than virtually anywhere else in Europe except Finland.
But not South Africa, Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, Russia...... why don't you include those countries just for funzies.....
For one reason they're mostly third-world shit holes. And we're talking about Europe for another.
DeleteIf that be the case, why did Pooch bring up the US and Yemen? I think you are trying to avoid Thomas's funzies.
Deleteorlin sellers
You do see Europe as a shining example, but let's recall that Europeans enjoy medical and social services that are much more extensive than what we have. (Can they continue to afford those is another question.) Reducing poverty and caring for our sick is a much more effective way to deal with violence than to infringe on the rights of citizens.
DeleteOrlin, have I reminded you of what morons Camp and you happen to be?
DeleteIf you are as intelligent as you think you are--try to figure out why Yemen is mentioned?
On the other hand some concepts are just too hard for someone like you to try to grasp and I won't bother wasting my time trying to explain things to you.
I'm guessing Yemen is mentioned because that's where the Murderer-in-Chief sent his death squads to kill several American citizens. Do I win a prize, Pooch?
Deleteorlin sellers
Laci, I'm intelligent enough to note that you didn't answer my point. In fact, you didn't respond to my comment at all. May we conclude that you accept what I said?
DeleteTo Greg (or perhaps someone of greater cognitive ability),
DeleteI wonder if such a tragedy would have occurred if the 2011 Referendum For the Protection Against Gun Violence had passed, and thus prohibited the possession of firearms by the common subject in Switzerland, and thus enforced the people's right to disarmament?
There remains much work to be done with regard for Yemen and the U.S. The small but wealthy Kuwait serves as an example of a Government strong enough to disarm it's subjects after years of similar having similar rates of the possession of weapons by civilians. A similar situation had existed for years in many Western Provinces of China, as well as Kuomintang occupied Formosa. Both regions are now safely disarmed, regardless of the legitimacy of their Governance.
Banning the possession, use and proliferation of firearms and all other objects intended to be used as a weapon by the common civilian (with exceptions for approved persons who can demonstrate a valid need to keep a weapon) would prevent criminals from obtaining weapons. If the possession of a firearm is appropriately punished (up to the use of capital punishment, if Kennedy v. Louisiana can be overturned) there would be a strong deterrent against the formation of an illicit arms market.
I agree with you that the regulation of arms possessed by mere subjects of the State (those subject to the rule of law) is pointless. The common person, with no ties to any law enforcement agency, no employment based armament need, and who conveys no public authority bears no interest in the preservation of domestic tranquility. If the U.S. government continues to allow individual non-State actors to obtain and possess firearms, the United States congress is in gross violation of the peoples right to Civilian Disarmament, as expressed in the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. You have no reasonable claim of any right to possess weapons, however you (and your ilk) have the right to be disarmed. Congress bears the fundamental duty to fulfill this right.
E.N., if you must refuse to make sense, can you at least be concise?
Delete"Another" one? How many were there previously?
ReplyDeleteThere are as many shootings as We tell you. You are told all you need to know about firearms; that they are not for the common civilian such as yourself. You need no more evidence then what is decreed by the Party.
DeleteFrom www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/Die-zwei-Seiten-der-Schweizer-Waffenkultur/story/18688042
ReplyDeleteThe most serious violent crimes involving firearms in Switzerland:
3rd January 2013: A gunman killed three women and wounded two men in the Swiss village of Daillon
24th May 2011: In Schafhausen BE the 35-year-old Swiss tenants shoots in eviction from housing a 39-year-old policeman with his army pistol. Another policeman he injured his arm. The offender was released on medical grounds from the army, but was not properly disarmed.
8th September 2010: The 67-year-old Hans Peter Bieler Kneubühl resisting the eviction of his house and barricaded himself inside. When police anrückt, he shoots at a policeman and seriously wounded him. The pensioner has a whole arsenal of weapons but no firearms license.
30th April 2006: The former skier Corinne Rey-Bellet and her younger brother Alain in Les Crosets VS from estranged husband shot himself with his service pistol. Then the offender commits suicide.
29th March 2004: A 43-year-old farmer in Escholzmatt LU shoots his wife, his brother, his wife and the social director. Then he directed himself Tathintergrund were family problems.
27th September 2001: The 57-year-old Friedrich Leibacher shoots out of anger at the authorities in the Zug cantonal parliament 14 people with an assault rifle and a pump action shotgun, then he shoots himself
Second April 1993: A 54-year-old employee of the Berne Bedag computer science at work runs amok and shoots two people before killing himself. Apparently he had family problems and difficulties at work.
31st August 1990: An engaging in financial difficulties Zurich Bijoutier shoots in a shooting spree in Zurich and Rickenbach TG five people, including his wife and two children. He also wounded four people before killing himself.
16th April 1986: The head of the City of Zurich Building Inspection, Günther Tschanun shoots, after tensions at work in the Zurich building department four colleagues and wounded a fifth. He is sentenced to 20 years in prison.
And so?
DeleteNow, how are you defining mass shootings?
DeleteI ask for your definition of a mass shooting because many people define mass shootings as those involving 4 or more victims. Not all of the examples you cite meet that criteria, so I want to know if you are using a different definition. Regardless of the definition you use, will it remain your definition?
ReplyDeleteYou're being a bit of a nit picker, aren't you. I only saw one that didn't meet the standard of 4 or more.
DeleteIf you don't pick nits, they grow into lousy arguments. You're familiar with that, I see.
DeleteNo, Mike, I'm not picking nits. It's almost impossible for real communication, in this case a discussion, to exist if the people involved aren't talking about the same things. It is equally legitimate for someone to ask my definition of a term. Especially when discussing things that are emotionally charged, or when talking about topics in which people have a lot of themselves invested, precise and publicly declared definitions keep us all honest (this is not an attack on Laci's honesty or integrity as it applies to all of us). It helps even more if we can agree on a definition. That's the source of the old comment from more formalized debate "let us first define our terms".
DeleteNits. First you asked one of those statement-kinda questions, implying that there haven't been other mass shootings in Switzerland. When shown that there have been, you're picking on the one in which some sick bastard only killed two people and himself and you want to belabor the definition.
DeleteAdmit when you're wrong. That'll put you in a better class than Greg.
When you're able to show that I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I'm not going to do it just to make you happy.
DeleteAgain, you assign motives rather than simply asking why. I asked both questions because I didn't know. As I said elsewhere, because I was ignorant of the information. Now, here's an idea. If you (or Laci) think I'm engaging in some sort of dishonest argumentation, then answer the questions, provide the definition and then put me on the spot. Publicly. Ask, "do you have any more questions before we actually begin discussing the topic" or something similar. You could do the same thing by sending me an email with definitions and numbers included...and then posting it here (without my email address, please).
Delete