Can someone please tell me how people use Switzerland as an argument?

[Black Mamba]

I may not agree with everyone on here about this, so let me start off by saying that I support the 2nd amendment and peoples right to bear arms. I also think we can have common sense gun laws without hurting any of that.

Now...

It seems to me that people who think "the more guns the better, no matter what" like to use Switzerland as an example to help their case. But Switzerland has an anomalously high rate of gun possession compared to its neighbors with an anomalously high gun homicide rate to match. So how is that used to help a gun proliferation argument? Honestly, the gun culture in Switzerland is itself an anomaly in the world and it makes extracting lessons from it to adopt here pretty difficult. Its success rate is hardly to be envied, if I'm any of Switzerland's neighbors, so I think we'd be best served looking elsewhere for inspiration anyhow.

In any case, there's a difference between gun proliferation and gun regulation. Switzerland has much stricter laws regulating the guns they do have - which they possess at a rate of about a half of what we do in the States, though I'd figure automatic rifle possession rates are much closer - requiring permits to actually carry firearms and issuing these permits quite selectively. But obviously, it's not as simple as a direct correlation between gun ownership or regulation and gun homicide, but there is indisputably a relationship. And we also must realize that no major US city controls gun homicides even close to as well as does London, Paris, Tokyo, or Berlin. And there's something to be said for that.

I'm interested as to what your thoughts are on this.

 

[fatjohn]

Uhm, Switzerland has a very low homocide rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Perhaps the gun portion might be large but that just means that if you outlaw guns killers will use knives more often. That's not really a good result, I rather be killed by a madman with a gun than a madman with a knife. People kill people, with whatever they think is handy. Not many murderers think "Oh if I had a gun I would shoot that guy. Unfortunately I only have a chainsaw and that would be to messy for me, so I shall continue living in piece.
The only thing is with a knife attack (very comparable thing happened in belgium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_De_Gelder ) it is likely that there are more survivors.

Also I don't know how armed they were in WWII but the nazi's respected their neutrality while they violated the neutrality of other countries.

 

[Matt Collins]

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politic...on_clash_over_anti-gun_move.html?cid=29083616

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_n...dent_with_army_gun_reported.html?cid=31560530

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Ar..._shootings_in_Zug_parliament.html?cid=2275034

 

[pcosmar]

I don't,, as a rule. or I use it to simply point out that a civilized society can be armed.

They do not have our Constitution.

 

[nobody's_hero]

They've tightened restrictions in the past decade or so. Since 2007 (?) you're not allowed to keep ammo in your home now (unless you're a police officer or something). So basically the government lets you keep a blunt-force weapon in your house. You could theoretically attach a bayonet and throw the whole thing at an attacker, which at one point was referred to as a spear.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I may not agree with everyone on here about this, so let me start off by saying that I support the 2nd amendment and peoples right to bear arms. I also think we can have common sense gun laws without hurting any of that.

Do your "common sense" restrictions include these "gun free" zones which are nothing but criminal free-for-alls?

 

[KMX]

more guns = less cimes. It's that simple.

 

[No Free Beer]

more guns = less cimes. It's that simple.

No, but seriously. Elaborate.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

No, but seriously. Elaborate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

 

[No Free Beer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law

 

[Black Mamba]

Uhm, Switzerland has a very low homocide rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

And much more relevant than that would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

[Confederate]

They've tightened restrictions in the past decade or so. Since 2007 (?) you're not allowed to keep ammo in your home now (unless you're a police officer or something). So basically the government lets you keep a blunt-force weapon in your house. You could theoretically attach a bayonet and throw the whole thing at an attacker, which at one point was referred to as a spear.

You can keep as much ammo as you want at home, ammo is even subsidized. They just don't issue militiamen a box of 50-rounds for their service weapon to be kept at home.

 

[Confederate]

which they possess at a rate of about a half of what we do in the States, though I'd figure automatic rifle possession rates are much closer

Every single Swiss male is a member of the national militia and has an automatic rifle issued to him which is kept at home. How many homes in the US do you know that have an automatic rifle?

 

[Pericles]

They've tightened restrictions in the past decade or so. Since 2007 (?) you're not allowed to keep ammo in your home now (unless you're a police officer or something). So basically the government lets you keep a blunt-force weapon in your house. You could theoretically attach a bayonet and throw the whole thing at an attacker, which at one point was referred to as a spear.

Not quite correct. prior to 2007, reservists kept 200 rounds of government supplied ammunition at home with the service weapon.The change was to return the government supplied ammunition to the armories. You can buy all of the ammunition you want, but ammunition for military purposes is issued as it is consumed (target shooting). Service weapons are still kept at home, and upon discharge from the military, may be kept after the automatic fire components have been removed.

 

[Black Mamba]

Every single Swiss male is a member of the national militia and has an automatic rifle issued to him which is kept at home. How many homes in the US do you know that have an automatic rifle?

I'll answer that as soon as I get an admission that these stats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ... are not very relevant in this thread compared to these stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate ... which was kinda my whole point. I've heard Switzerland used on the pro-gun-proliferation side, but it just doesnt make sense.

 

[Confederate]

Neither of those links works.

 

[thoughtomator]

Please don't feed the trolls.

 

[Black Mamba]

Neither of those links works.

My bad, I had copied and pasted the shortened version. These ones should work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate ... Switzerland has a higher rate of gun possession and a higher rate of gun violence than its neighbors. Thats what I was trying to say. But, really, the Swiss gun culture is so unique that its hard to make comparisons.

What we can look to are countries like Paris, Berlin, Tokyo or London - no major U.S. city controls gun homicides as well as they do (we should also be looking at whats happening in our own country, too).

 

[angelatc]

I'll answer that as soon as I get an admission that these stats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ... are not very relevant in this thread compared to these stats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate ... which was kinda my whole point. I've heard Switzerland used on the pro-gun-proliferation side, but it just doesnt make sense.

Your stats don't mean anything. You can't prove that the death rate, or the violent crime rates, decrease when guns are taken out of society.

Having said that, there's no such thing as "sensible" regulations, and I'm not interested in negotiating for my rights with the terrorists that are smug, data-cherry picking, lying liberals.


ETA: Murder by capita - the US isn't even on the list: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capit

 

[Black Mamba]

You can logically extrapolate conclusions from data that say that industrialized Western countries with a lot of guns have a high gun death rate and industrialized Western countries without a lot of guns have a low gun death rate. Especially data from the same country both before and after heavy gun regulations (Australia before and after Port Arthur) that show gun deaths cut in half over a decade or so of stricter gun regulations.

So you're calling people you disagree with politically "terrorists" and dismissing us out of hand our ideas. As such, you're not really interested in debate, so what are you even doing "palling around with terrorists" like me? (I'm not even a liberal, btw).