General gripe not really directed at our gracious hostess:

I work in the biz and all, but I must be one of the only people these days who generally loathes video links unless they're to things that can't be otherwise conveyed. I hate it when that's how Google wants me to learn about some new tool or new analytics feature, I hate it when somebody wants me to learn about Switzerland, etc... it doesn't matter. I can scan massive amounts of text quickly and figure out what is going on and if it's worth real attention. With video, I have to sit and watch. And so I usually don't.

Generally agree on web video, but I thought this one was worth it.

I second that: I want to read a summary. If there's a video, I almost never look at it - just go on to something else.

Boo Hoo Whatever and Bradley13. (Sarcasm) somes times I feel the same way about subtitles - I want to watch my video not read my movie.

Good Little Clip. Thanks Amy

...and I'm unfortunately not able to view it from work computer; now my curiousity is piqued, and will have to check it out at home!

So - the theory here is that the reason there are fewer crimes in Switzerland is because they all have guns? I mean, really?

Well Karen, it depends on who you ask, what their agenda is, and how they tweak their numbers to get their "message" across. The Swiss seem pretty impartial and don't look to foist anything on anyone.

For more relevant domestic statistics, I suggest you cross-reference crime rates in states that have concealed-carry weapons permits. There appears to be an inverse relationship. The more CCW holders, the lower the crime rate, and vice versa:

"Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense". (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

Amy, you'll like this one:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2006/09/thailand-trains-teachers-on-how-to-use.html

If this posts twice, sorry folks. I'm trying to get around the flushing spam vortex-

Well Karen, it depends on who you ask, what their agenda is, and how they tweak their numbers to get their "message" across. The Swiss seem pretty impartial and don't look to foist anything on anyone.

For more relevant domestic statistics, I suggest you cross-reference crime rates in states that have concealed-carry weapons permits. There appears to be an inverse relationship. The more CCW holders, the lower the crime rate, and vice versa:

"Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense". (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

John Lott's website reports on how teachers in Thailand have been trained to defend their classrooms from Islamic terrorists. My link got me booted, but just google John Lott Thailand trains teachers on how to use guns. And don't blow this off as an outlier. Beslan ring a bell? They like to attack defenseless targets.

At the risk of angering the spam filter gods, I edited out most of the links that were included in the following email I got from a hunter friend of ours (who admittedly is rather excitable), but thought this should be posted in light of the fact that our current administration is pulling yet another fast one on the unsuspecting public (apologies for the lengthiness):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

More good news from our beloved administration.
Now 'All Guns' must be listed on your next (2010) tax return!
As if we didn't have enough to get upset about! If you have a gun, I hope it isn't registered!

Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It will require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.

This bill was introduced on Feb. 24, 2009, by the Obama staff. But this bill will only become public knowledge 30 days after the new law becomes effective! This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee has passed this without the Senate voting on it at all. Trust Obama? ..... you must be kidding!
The full text of the IRS amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage. You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.

Text of H.R.45 as Introduced in House: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - U.S.... OpenCongress Obama's Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply.
It has begun... Whatever Obama's secret Master Plan is....this is just the 'tip of the iceberg!'
Very Important for you to be aware of another new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009.
Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar as a 'minor' IRS revision, and, as usuual, the 'political' lawmakers did not read this bill before signing and approving it!
To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.
Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
-It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver's License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing -Each update - change of ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. -There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Guns must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. -They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pass this along.

This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it. This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not.

Please.. copy and send this out to EVERYONE in the USA , whether you support the Right to Bear Arms or are for gun control. We all should have the right to choose.

@Juliana - see also Virgina Tech - advertised as a "Gun Free Zone". If even 5% of the students and teachers at VT were carrying, Cho wouldn't have been able to kill nearly as many people. In fact, he likely wouldn't have tried.

Criminals want to be in control of the situation. An armed victim takes control back. For a criminal, that's too much like work to deal with.

What the Swiss example shows is that the presence of guns does not cause problems.

I believe that cultural homogeneity contributes a great deal to the low crime rate in Switzerland.

I believe that cultural homogeneity contributes a great deal to the low crime rate in Switzerland.

Posted by: Pseudonym at December 8, 2009 7:51 AM
--------------------------
True. And the Swiss posses a high degree of personal responsibility and are typically very well educated.

Flynne, that warning about a plot to use IRS in a gun registration plot shows up every so often on the forums at the Gunbroker auction site. It has been repeatedly debunked.

I have relaxed about this one so I can focus my anxiety elsewhere.

Well Amy, I wouldn't rob a house. Period. It doesn't matter to me if there is a gun in it or not.

Let's put it this way - I live in Canada where there is A LOT of gun control. I would be willing to walk up and down the street of the lowest income neighbourhood in my city at 1:00am. Would you do the same in your American city, where gun control laws are a lot more lax than here? According to Amys theory, cities in America would be much safer than cities in Canada because more people are allowed to have guns.

Thanks, Axman. I'd hate to think something like that would be true.

So what's the anxiety focus today? Ya think Tiger Wood's mom will be okay?

o.O

"Well Amy, I wouldn't rob a house"

Of course you wouldn't. You're not a criminal! Criminals don't obey gun control laws, or any other laws. Not in Canada, or the US.

I lived in Toronto for many years, and always felt perfectly safe wandering all over the city. I don't think I'd feel the same today in Canada's murder capital, Winnipeg:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Winnipeg-Murder-Capital-again-in-2008-66913522.html

Karen,

Most cities in the U.S. have very strict gun control laws. D.C., until recently, had the worst, and they were constantly in the top 5 for gun related crimes. Criminals don't pay attention to the laws, that's why they are criminals.

All stricter gun contol does, is make law abiding citizens unable to protect themselves, thier loved ones, and thier property. If I remember correctly (and if someone knows and can give the case), Law Enforcement here in the U.S. has no obligation to protect you from criminals. And yet, they want to take away your ability to protect yourself.

This will sound paranoid, but the only real reason that I can come up with for gun control, is to allow an out of control government to control it's citizens with no resistance.

Note from the above link that Winnipeg, with a population of 760,000, had 31 murders in 2008, for a homicide rate of 4.07/100K. Let's compare to the US state right across the border, namely North Dakota, a concealed-carry state where guns are almost everywhere. With a population of 641,000, ND had 3(!) murders in 2008, for a homicide rate of 0.5/100K:

http://disastercenter.com/crime/ndcrimn.htm

More guns do not automatically mean more crime & murder, and more gun control does not automatically make you safer.

I'd be interested in knowing what type of criminal justice system Switzerland has--anyone know off the top?

"More guns do not automatically mean more crime & murder". Agreed.

"more gun control does not automatically make you safer." Agreed.

Just 1 thing to add:

less gun control does not automatically make you safer.

Karen asked: "I would be willing to walk up and down the street of the lowest income neighbourhood in my city at 1:00am. Would you do the same in your American city, where gun control laws are a lot more lax than here?"

I would if I were armed. That's the point.

Karen, I'm glad your city is safe. But the point Amy is making is not that more total guns = less crime. Her point is that more RESPONSIBLE gun ownership by law-abiding citizens trained in using them is related to less crime. This certainly seems to be the case in Switzerland, and also some American states--see Juliana's points on state's inverse CCW permit / crime rate relationship.

The safety problem in your hypothetical "American city" arises from criminals' easy access to guns combined with law-abiding citizens being culturally and legally discouraged from having guns for self-defense. Citizens are then at the mercy of thugs. Yes, be glad your city apparently has few gun-wielding criminals, but don't thank your gun control laws. As Martin points out, they have the same laws in Winnipeg, and they're not working out so well there.

Outlawing guns will never keep criminals from accessing them. Allowing and even training citizens to defend themselves prevents criminals from empowering themselves so devastatingly.

Overreach Karen. Actually in the U.S. less gun control does make you safer.

Martin I'd just like to point out that Winnipeg is the crime capital of Canada. Yes it's more dangerous than the example you used but crime is out of control in Winnipeg for reasons other than gun control or lack-thereof namely the horrendous poverty level.

Yes, Nicky. Likewise, the 2nd Amendment is not the reason why crime is out of control in Detroit, Newark, the South Side of Chicago...On both sides of the border, hysterical shrieking about guns is a cheap cop-out to avoid facing & dealing with the real problems.

Brilliant video!
Especially since the bleeding hearts are always genuflecting towards Europe.

Brilliant video!
Especially since the bleeding hearts are always genuflecting towards Europe.

Here in Israel there are guns and rifles all over the place. The laws about gun ownership are generally stricter than in the US - which may be why Israelis don't understand incidents when Americans "go postal".

keep individuals with the ability to defend themselves... less crime. yes, I get it.

Do not get cause and effect backwards.

Firearms possession by the responsible is never a problem. Switzerland is a fine example of citizen involvement first, and the presence of weapons removes the mythology constantly fed Americans.

Americans possess over 250 thousand actual, fully-automatic machine guns, as well as an estimated 200 million-plus other guns. This constitutes the majority of guns in private hands worldwide. I suggest that Americans are doing a pretty good job, despite the instant nationwide media access anyone misbehaving with a gun automatically gets.

Do not get cause and effect backwards. You can only have a "gun problem" if you have a crime problem - a problem of not having the will to enforce law. If you do not have a crime problem, you cannot have a "gun problem".

Every state that has passed "shall-issue" concealed carry laws has seen gun ownership go up and violent crime go down. EVERY one of them.

It's pretty hard to not claim causation there.

I think the "concealed" part is the deterrent, and not the "carry". When the criminal never knows whether he's getting a wallet or a bullet, he's a bit more skittish and goes for soft targets like the good old smash-n-grab.

Let's put it this way - I live in Canada where there is A LOT of gun control. I would be willing to walk up and down the street of the lowest income neighbourhood in my city at 1:00am. Would you do the same in your American city, where gun control laws are a lot more lax than here? According to Amys theory, cities in America would be much safer than cities in Canada because more people are allowed to have guns.

High crime cities in the United States tend to have extremely strict gun control laws that are only now being declared by the courts to be unconstitutional. For example, in Chicago you can only carry a gun if you're a police officer or an alderman. The US's reputation for lax gun control laws is exaggerated; even in small cities, people who are licensed by the state to carry concealed weapons are typically prohibited from bringing them into a variety of places such as schools and shopping malls. A recent controversy involved whether or not to allow people to take weapons into national parks. Gun control laws vary widely from place to place within the US, making it more difficult to carry weapons while traveling.

I frequently hear questions like this: "Why would anybody want to bring a gun to a playground?" The answer is simple and obvious: so that if some maniac starts shooting people, you can defend yourself.

less gun control does not automatically make you safer.

Agreed. It is the side effects of less gun control that make people safer: increased gun availability, increased gun ownership, increased gun safety training, and decreased criminal predation.

"I would be willing to walk up and down the street of the lowest income neighbourhood in my city at 1:00am."

Heh. That means nothing. I can do that in a thousand small towns in the South alone.

And think hard about this: why do you use the term, "lowest income"? Poverty doesn't cause crime. Don't you mean something else?

Switzerland actually has very strict laws about guns. Yes, the men are required to serve in the military and own one, but there is serious registration and the bullets are all marked, so if someone gets shot they know exactly whose gun it is. The NRA would not be cool with the amount of registration going into Swiss guns. And if you are NOT a soldier, (rare, but happens) it is difficult to get a gun.

Also, if you shoot someone in your home, you will go to jail, even if they are an intruder. Guns are for defending Switzerland against Germans, French, Austrians, Italians, or the dreaded Liechstensteinese... not for shooting each other. You'd have to prove that the intruder intended to kill you, not just steal your stuff, in order to not be punished.

Switzerland takes care of its poor. And also of the poor from lots of other countries. There is a lot of welfare. Everyone has a place to live, and food. You almost never see beggars on the street, because they are taken care of.

Switzerland does have a lot of purse snatchers and pickpockets, though, especially in border towns where the crooks can easily dash off to France or Germany.

There are more break-ins in Swiss houses than there are in the safe upper-middle class suburbs of US cities. This is because wealthy neighborhoods and poorer neighborhoods are near each other.

What you do NOT have in Switzerland is miles and miles of slums like we have here. You don't get these huge swaths of ghetto, they simply do not exist. This is the main reason for the lower crime overall. None of the cities are big, and the "bad" neighborhoods are only a few blocks. And they aren't falling apart the way American ghettos are, with boarded up and collapsing houses.

Switzerland has low crime because it is small, the towns are small, and it is wealthy enough not to have a huge underclass whose despair is so great that they don't even bother trying to succeed.

Switzerland also doesn't have a drug war. I'm not sure if pot is 100% legal, but I think it only carries a small fine. My cousin the grower seems unconcerned about legal ramifications (though come to think of it, perhaps he's just relaxed because he smokes so much). If you're a drug addict, you'll get free needles and rehab. Chasing down drug deals is just not a high priority in Switzerland.

Switzerland does have a high level of graffiti, though. In the 90s it tended to be very artistic and political, but it's gone downhill. I blame the foreigners. Because that's what Swiss do.

The video, for those who didn't watch it, does not make a link between guns and crime in Switzerland.

It's a guy who likes to shoot things, who went to a Holocaust museum, and says that guns are necessary to protect against tyranny.

Doesn't mention crime at all.

"If I remember correctly (and if someone knows and can give the case), Law Enforcement here in the U.S. has no obligation to protect you from criminals."

Sure. The case is Warren v. District of Columbia.
An excerpt:

Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability." There's more info out there if you care to look, but it's not pretty.

Wait, what? What exactly are cops paid to do, then?

Isn't it Glenn Reynolds who told us that an "An armed society is a polite society"?
There is something very different about the Swiss, with or without guns.
Forget the chocolate and the Alps...you don't mess with them.
Yeah and I know, my husband was Swiss. Don't even get me started on his family.

NicoleK,

They are there to clean up after a crime, and investigate it. NOT to protect the average citizen.

Juliana,

Thanks, I just couldn't bring it to the front of my mind. Agreed it's not pretty.

So, you have the courts saying, in this case, that the D.C. cops have no obligation to provide personal protection (Then what is that 911 charge on your phone bill for?), at the time, D.C. had one of the most restrictive gun control laws (so people couldn't defend themselves).

Who is looking out for your safety? No one. And you aren't allowed to look after yourself. Gotta love the politicians who put this kind of crap into law.

NicoleK, where did you get the idea that Swiss "bullets are marked"? They get inventoried, and there's an allowance for range practice. How do you think a million rounds of ammunition gets individually marked - and retroactively?

This juvenile, nay childish, fear of weapons is pervasive. It's a fear of life itself, of the tough job it is to hang onto life when someone wants to take it from you.

This isn't an argument about the law. It's an argument about utility. Gun myths abound; three of the horribly false ones are, "I have a gun, I'm protected," "shoot him, then drag him in the house," and "the gun wins a fight with a knife". Look up the name, "Dennis Tueller" on that one.

But, about utility, and history: see what Oleg Volk has to say on the subject.

If you want to see what the firearm means to you and your society, you must discard any bias you have been taught, and regard them as the machine tools they are. Holding a hammer doesn't make you a carpenter, and holding a gun doesn't mean anything automatically either. Yet they are not going away, and one of the prime considerations of your life is who is allowed to possess them.
If not you - the supposed leader of the country through your vote - then who?

Okay, so Warren v. DC was a rude surprise.

It shouldn't be. Just what made you think that you could sue a public agency for non-protection anyway?

Television? A high fever?

Suing the cops means no more police, which I suggest is not a good thing. They have duties, which are apparently a mystery to people accustomed to yelling "Me! Me! Me!" as well as those who have odd ideas about law enforcement.

Just what made you think that you could sue a public agency for non-protection anyway?

It was probably some convoluted logic assuming that the people allowed to carry guns would protect those who under the law couldnt

It is my understanding that the bullets are marked on their way out of the gun, so you know which gun it came from.

But yes, Radwaste, I agree with your point... guns are a tool. I'm not against sane, non-criminal people having them.

But yes, Radwaste, I agree with your point... guns are a tool. I'm not against sane, non-criminal people having them.

I agree, but I'm still a little uncomfortable about restricting someone's civil rights because of their mental status. You can make a good practical case for it, just like you can make a good practical case for literacy tests before voting, which turned out to be not so great.

I feel similarly for certain kinds of criminal status. Someone who has paid their debt to society, or someone whose crime was nonviolent to begin with, shouldn't have to surrender their right to self defense. Even violent felons should be allowed to vote once they're out of prison and finished with parole.

I'd just like to point out two differences between the USA and Switzerland when it comes to guns: (1) the Swiss can apparently be trusted to keep so-called "assault weapons" (seriously, who would mount a military assault with semi-automatic weaspons?!) while we cannot and (2) convicted felons in the USA can not get their gun rights back, thus protecting millions of ducks from the likes of Martha Stewart.

I think we can all agree that this makes America the best and free-est country in the world.

Since one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to retain for the citizenry the ability to topple an oppressive government, should one arise, it makes perfect sense to allow ordinary people to possess military weapons.

Since there are strong practical arguments for restricting access to weapons of mass destruction, I support a constitutional amendment that gives Congress the power to do so.

Okay, more details.

First: you can petition the governor of your state for re-enfranchisement: the return of the rights you have lost as a result of felony conviction.

Second: ALL bullets carry distinguishing marks when fired from a conventionally-rifled (land-groove) or polygonally-bored barrel. The exceptions are saboted rounds, both rifle and shotgun, which leave the barrel in a sleeve, and fin-guided rounds leaving a smooth bore. Thus, the Swiss do not, in fact have anything new or different to trace where a bullet came from.

This is not by itself a bad thing. You will notice that shooting someone is really conspicuous, even when it is done with a silenced weapon.

Arguing about the tools is highly pointless, as I will now illustrate with a by-line from Beretta: "Pietro Beretta & Sons - est. 1591".

Oh, by the way: on CSI and in a bunch of conversations you'll see and hear people push the idea of registering a gun with a photo of the characteristic marks it makes on its bullets.

This is refined nonsense.

Not only will a rat-tailed file change that pattern in just one second, bore fouling will also change it; lead and other residues pile up in a gun barrel, depending on a bunch of factors. There is no improvement on the current practice of comparing a gun found recently to a bullet fired recently. You simply can't rely on a years-old picture.

In court, you'd have to prove that not only was the gun the one at the scene of the crime, you have to show that the barrel of another gun could NOT produce that pattern.

It's a crock.