Skip to main content

View Diary: Some Truth About Switzerland and Guns (121 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you have a reference for the statement (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NM Ray, noway2

    that Switzerland has the fourth  highest gun violence rate in the world? That's devastating if true, but I'd like to know where those stats are documented.

    •  Everything written in this post... (7+ / 0-)

      even if inaccurate comes from the sources listed at the end of the post. That particular piece of info comes from the Politifact site. According to them, and they cite gunpolicy.org, Switzerland is fourth behind the US, Greece and Ireland. (Gunpolicy.org now rates Switzerland as 3rd highest in the world.)

      •  UN figures (4+ / 0-)

        From the UN Office on Drugs and Crime you can download their report on the subject for 2011.

        The firearms homicide rate in Switzerland is .77 per 100,00 people. The rate in the US is 3.21. Of the countries listed, 12 are higher than Switzerland (including the US), and 5 are higher than the US.

        All of the ones higher than the US have stricter gun control than either the US or Switzerland, but to be fair the closest one of them to a first world democracy would be Mexico, at 9.97 per 100,000.

        Everything written in this post even if inaccurate comes from the sources listed at the end of the post
        Not sure that "even if inaccurate, I found it on the internet" and "I'm a teacher and I'm passing this on to my students" are things I want to hear together.
        •  Does this source work for you? (4+ / 0-)

          http://www.gunpolicy.org/...

          Obviously, there are a number of ways to use statistics. But I believe I have done due rigor here, specifically on this question.

          I take seriously how the Internet is used, but use it we must. I have weeded through a number of sources before writing this article and, in fact, have multiple sources for each statement in the article.

          •  Switzerland doesn't look so bad... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JR, andalusi, JesseCW, Smoh

            When you compare it to the right (Wrong?) countries:  http://www.gunpolicy.org/... (Same site, different choice of countries)

          •  You've misused that site's chart (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Flying Goat, andalusi, JesseCW, MGross

            Switch out the countries and a completely different picture emerges. Common sense should tell you that there are a) more countries than the ones on your graph, and b) that many of those not on the list are likely--owing to recent instability, ethnic conflict or war--to have higher violence rates than Switzerland.

            The claim seems to be wildly inaccurate, and should be edited to reflect that fact.

            "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

            by JR on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:34:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  we should compare the US to countries at war...? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Bensdad

              ... and countries involved in other types of instability to get a fair comparison for the amount of gun violence in the US...?

              Cheers.

              •  Didn't say that. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JesseCW

                I said the claim the diarist made was inaccurate. (And having had a recent war is not the same as being "at war" in any case, so your counterpoint falls flat as well. I don't think we get to exclude post-war countries from the list of "countries of the world," do you?)

                Look, I completely agree that the comparisons are largely irrelevant, and that our levels of gun violence are unacceptable. I'll be standing in the cold in front of the state house in Annapolis in about eight hours (I really should get to bed, "Love Actually" be damned) to make that point to my legislators, and even a cursory glance at my comment history should be enough to establish my views on the subject. But I don't allow sympathy with a position to trump the need for accurate arguments, and the argument the diarist made--the specific, verifiable statement being claimed as truth--is just wrong. There is no metric by which you can accurately claim that "Switzerland's gun violence rate is fourth highest in the world" and even the citations he provided undermine his claim. Why waste the time to defend that?

                "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

                by JR on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:54:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm responding to your comment, not... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...to the diary in general.

                  My question seems a completely valid question considering your comment, and it could probably be slightly rephrased and accurately characterized as an accurate observation.

                  Congrats on the action tomorrow, tho' I don't see my question as discussing anything other than a comparison of US gun violence and that in other countries with high rates of gun violence.

                  Cheers.

              •  We have lots of wars going on in the US (0+ / 0-)

                Afghanistan for sure but then there's the war on drugs, the war on Christmas, the war on obnoxious rightwing blowhards, the war on freedoms etc.

                "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

                by newfie on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 06:33:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            andalusi
            I take seriously how the Internet is used, but use it we must. I have weeded through a number of sources before writing this article and, in fact, have multiple sources for each statement in the article.
            I agree. I may come across as ragging on you, but the subject matter is important enough that we (all of us) should be accurate as possible, both with our sources and our language. Errors taint the whole.

            So, if you say that Switzerland has strong ammunition controls because of a third-hand source and a copy of actual Swiss law says otherwise, it reduces the credibility of your sources in general, even though they may be right on other particulars. Similarly, your claim for the 4th highest gun homicide rate in Switzerland was based on a very specific selection of countries, while the claim was a broad "4th highest in the world", which is not the case. This would be an instance where listing the countries or the characteristics of the countries on the list would have eliminated a large number of comments on that statement's accuracy.

            On the matter of percentage of guns owner, I believe you are correct. My original question was not saying you were wrong, it just seemed odd considering their system. After digging around, the numbers I was able to find approximate yours. Here is another article on their system, attitudes and some of their own gun violence:

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/...

        •  Misleading or Erroneous (0+ / 0-)

          Your link is for the UN's "2011 Global Study on Homicide".

          Homicide is different from gun injuries and gun deaths: homicide may include gun deaths, but should in no way be considered equivalent to deaths due to guns.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 07:33:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Mostly suicides (0+ / 0-)

      "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

      by Texas Lefty on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 07:48:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So suicides don't count? WTF? n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kevskos

        Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

        by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:13:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, they don't. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Steve Canella, noway2

          There are other methods of suicide. Banning an item that is convenient to it's execution will not diminish suicide rates.

          •  You could not be more wrong if you tried (14+ / 0-)

            Please provide a source to support your uninformed claim.

            Out here in the real world where we use actual data, the facts contradict you.

            Turns out that in the US, suicide attempt by firearm is about 80% successful, while attempts by poisoning or cutting are only about 3% successful (other more rare methods fall in between). Since mental health professionals consider that suicide attempts are often impulsive acts, it is clear that the method of attempt is a critical factor in reducing the rate of successful suicide.

            Suicide prevention is one of the primary benefits of strong gun control/firearms bans

            Miller, M; Azrael, D; Barber, C (2012 Apr). "Suicide mortality in the United States: the importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide.". Annual review of public health 33: 393–408. PMID 22224886.

            •  Thank you for this. nt (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DefendOurConstitution, Smoh

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 11:56:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You're conflating parasuicide with suicide (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MGross

              which it makes it just about impossible to come to any useful policy decisions.

              People choose guns, ropes, and leaps from over 100 feet when they intend to kill themselves.

              People who cut or use pills are almost always making a cry for desperately (and sincerely) needed help.

              If fewer guns meant fewer suicides, Japan and South Korea wouldn't be at the top of the suicide charts and the US wouldn't be in the middle.

              income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

              by JesseCW on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 03:39:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your claim is ridiculous unless you have (0+ / 0-)

                A source (or 6). You have no idea how many parasuicides become real suicides because the gun is in the house. Give some stats or stop playing psychologist.

                Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

                by Smoh on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 05:37:17 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Stop pretending that facts are irrelevant. There (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MGross

                  are essentially no guns in private hands in Japan, and they've got the highest suicide rate in the world.  

                  Highly effective methods are available to anyone who wants to use them and is not on a 24 hour suicide watch.

                  No one uses a gun in a parasuicide. That completely misses the point of what parasuicide is.  Anyone over the age of 10 understand that pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger is final.

                  When people intend to kill themselves, they pick the most effective method available.  In India, that's pesticides.  In Australia, it used to be guns but is now hanging.

                  Through the 1980's in Australia, gun suicides dropped as fewer and fewer Australians owned guns.  Suicide by hanging, however, increased enough to more than make up the difference.

                  Heavily restricting firearms didn't lower their suicide rate.  They had to institute a national suicide prevention strategy to do that (and it's working).

                  There has to come a time when the NRA and their inverse number both stop ignoring the facts.

                  Countries awash in unregulated guns have very high murder rates.  This is a cold hard fact that gun fetishists refuse to recognize, in the face of overwhelming evidence.

                  Guns do not reduce crime, no matter how passionately they believe it.

                  There is no correlation between suicide rates and availability of firearms, and this is a cold hard fact that people who have morphed guns into demonic forces refuse to recognize.

                  Access to guns does not increase the suicide rate, in and of itself, no matter how passionately they believe it.

                  US - Guns fucking everywhere in hands they shouldn't be - middle of the pack on suicide.

                  Japan and North Korea - No guns at all, top of the list.

                  Finland - fairly high number of guns, better regulated than the US, near the top of the list.

                  Switzerland - Fairly high number of guns, middle of the pack.

                  The leading cause of suicide is untreated depression.  

                  The correlation to high suicide rates in other countries isn't tied to firearms - it's tied to the social stigma against seeking mental health care.  The greater that cultural baggage, the more people kill themselves.

                  Men in America kill themselves 4.5 times more often than women.  Do you think this is because men are far more likely to have access to firearms? (not the case)

                  Or do you think this just might be because there is a far greater stigma against men seeking mental health care?

                  We can pretend that gun laws can stop suicide, and waste time while people die like Australia did, or we can make sure mental health care is available to everyone who needs it while striving to erase the stigma that prevents people from seeking it out.

                  Gun control and suicide prevention simply are not the same issue.

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 06:19:25 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your post (0+ / 0-)

                    Is simply full of factual inaccuracies, but you did write one meaningful thing:

                    "When people intend to kill themselves, they pick the most effective method available."

                    As suicide is often an impulsive act, this has a tendency to be true. When guns (~80-90% effective) are available, they are chosen. When they're not, suffocation/hanging (~60-70% effective) or falls from a height (~30% effective) are.

                    This is borne out by the Australian experience which you cite but somehow manage to get completely wrong.

                    "Considered nationally, the falls in suicide were due to significant reductions in shooting, gassing and poisoning, and occurred despite an increase in suicide by hanging....[] . These results are consistent with the hypothesis that that measures to control the availability of firearms, the requirement for new cars to be fitted with catalytic converters and the decline in the prescription of tricyclic antidepressants have resulted in a decline in total suicide rates." This study found that while suicidal ideation and even attempts did not fall, the drop in suicide rate seen for Australia was due to the decreased lethality of the available options after firearms less available.

                    (Large MM, Nielssen OB.Suicide in Australia: meta-analysis of rates and methods of suicide between 1988 and 2007.Med J Aust. 2010 Apr 19;192(8):432-7.)

                    The odds of unsuccessful suicide attempt are increased when guns are not available. This is FACT, unlike most of what you have posted here.

                    Gun laws can and do reduce the success rate of suicide attempts. I realize this is an uncomfortable fact for some but it is best to be honest.

                    Certainly, improved access to mental health is important but in the presence of guns fewer people will ever make it to the psychiatrist's office. The authors of the above paper put it better:

                    "The limited capacity to predict who will commit suicide is evident from the statistic that more than 2% of the Australian population experience suicidal ideas in any given year, but fewer than one in 10 000 complete suicide. Hence, the intervention that would be most likely to further reduce the rate of suicide would be to further limit the availability of lethal means"

                    •  Nielssen's paper used data through 2007. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JesseCW

                      Suicide rates have since rebounded (although not to the levels seen in decades past.)  Then there's also the fact that suicide by firearms was a small percentage of total suicides as far back as 1997 (PDF)

                      There's also the fact the decline of this relatively small segment began well prior to the implementation of tighter gun control (PDF)

                    •  Again. Most "failed" jumping and hanging (0+ / 0-)

                      attempts weren't attempts.  They were parasuicide.  

                      You're simply pretending that this does not exist.  You're dedicated to the proposition that the person who leaps from a second floor window is just as intent on comitting suicide as the person who leaps from a 200 foot office tower.

                      The overwhelming majority of suicide "attempts" are parasuicide.  They are not suicide attempts.

                      Australian suicides by year -

                      2010: 2,359
                      2009: 2,284
                      2008: 2,340
                      2007: 2,227
                      2006: 2,118
                      2005: 2,101
                      2004: 2,098
                      2003: 2,213
                      2002: 2,320
                      2001: 2,454
                      2000: 2,363
                      1999: 2,492
                      1998: 2,683
                      1997: 2,720
                      1996: 2,393
                      1995: 2,368
                      1994: 2,258
                      1993: 2,081
                      1992: 2,294
                      1991: 2,360
                      1990: 2,161
                      1989: 2,096
                      1988: 2,197

                      http://www.gunpolicy.org/...

                      It took 5 years for them to get back to normal after the severe firearm restriction laws went into effect.  Now, you might argue that's got to do with compliance, or that guns were still out there, or....

                      but here are gun suicides.  They went down, while suicides went up.

                      2010: 162
                      2009: 169
                      2008: 183
                      2007: 190
                      2006: 181
                      2005: 147
                      2004: 167
                      2003: 193
                      2002: 217
                      2001: 261
                      2000: 222
                      1999: 269
                      1998: 235
                      1997: 329
                      1996: 382
                      1995: 388
                      1994: 420
                      1993: 431
                      1992: 488
                      1991: 505
                      1990: 486
                      1989: 450
                      1988: 521

                      That's the gun suicide rate.  You can see that it was already tanking drastically, and kept right on tanking.

                      80% of all firearm suicide deaths in the US are white males.  White women have an almost identical degree of access to firearms.  They rarely use them.

                      If access to firearms changes parasuicide into suicide, why does this only apply to one gender?

                      Why are white males 12 times more likely to kill themselves when they "attempt" suicide than white women?  They live in the same homes, the same distance from the gun cabinet.

                      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                      by JesseCW on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 09:37:30 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You have no idea (0+ / 0-)

                        what you're talking about.

                        How are you able to conclude that "failed hangings and jumps were "parasuicide""? Did you examine the patients afterwards? Did you read a study in which this was done? Are you even board certified in psychiatry (like I am?)

                        Your easy dismissal of suicide attempts that are unsuccessful as "must be parasuicide" ignores what actual data and mental health professionals have shown over decades of actual research: suicide is most often an impulsive act. When a gun is around, many (mostly men, as they're more prone to the violent methods) use them. When they're not, they may try less lethal methods.

                        I am enjoying the hubris that has you pretending to know better than the editors at NEJM and so on, though.

                        I will also point out that you posted numbers, not rates. The suicide rate in Australia has decreased with strict gun control. As one would fully expect with substitution of less lethal methods, some but not all suicide attempts were converted into failed suicides. This is consistent with what I have been explaining to you, and the opposite of what you proposed.

                        If what you claim were true, you would expect no change in the overall suicide rate with fewer guns because anyone who is "really serious" will always manage to kill themselves. And yet, the overall (non-firearm) suicide RATE in Australia fell by 27% by 2006!

                        It is true that men are more prone to violence (including self-violence) than women. You're hardly breaking new ground there.

                    •  If you'd like to question any of my facts, please (0+ / 0-)

                      point what you've got a problem with.

                      I can back them up.

                      You're left hanging with the proposition that a person who slits their wrist side to side and shallow has the same intent as a person who jumps from the Brooklyn Bridge.

                      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                      by JesseCW on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 09:42:01 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Your "facts" (0+ / 0-)

                        You claim to somehow omnisciently know which suicide attempts are "real" and which are "parasuicide", when even trained professionals don't know (and usually the patients themselves don't know). That is not "fact", it is your self-serving supposition.

                        You posted raw numbers but not rates, which do in fact show a drop in Australia's OVERALL successful suicide rate by nearly one-third in the decade following strict gun control.

                        So, yes, I have a problem with your "facts".

                        •  You're now arguing with claims not made. It took (0+ / 0-)

                          five years for suicide rates to get back below the pre-restriction level.

                          I haven't argued at all that it has not fallen.  It has.  And it's because of a massive national effort to reduce it.

                          In the US, the rate of homes with guns has been falling for thirty years. It peaked in 1977 at 54% and in 2011 was at 32.2 .

                          http://www.upi.com/...

                          What has happened to the suicide rate?

                          http://www.suicide.org/...

                          From 13.2 in 1980 to 10.8 in 2003.  This, even though we've had massive demographic shifts.  Whites, who commit suicide at twice the rate of some other ethnic groups, now make up much less of the population.

                          Gun fetishists think a gun is answer to every problem.  Their mirror images think guns are the cause of every problem.

                          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                          by JesseCW on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 01:21:03 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  Your error (0+ / 0-)

                --and it is a major one-- is assuming that there is only one factor in suicide. Suicide is a multifactorial problem: cultural, medical, practical. Reducing the lethality of available methods is one major way of converting successful suicides into patients in treatment. This is borne out by the available research and not just someone's suppositions (the best controlled example is Australia, as I post below).

                •  Wait. So the correlation between gun access (0+ / 0-)

                  as gun crime is valid evidence.

                  The total lack of correlation between gun access and gun suicide is irrelevant.

                  I can see by your efforts to distort plain facts from Australia that this isn't about truth for you.

                  Suicide rates did not fall their until they stopped treating the issue as a "gun problem".  You want to completely ignore massive increases in suicide prevention funding, simply because you don't like the where the truth leads.

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 09:07:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                    There is a strong correlation between gun access and gun suicide. Did you miss seeing that data or are you ignoring that?

                    I am the one posting the facts (and the peer-reviewed references containing them) about Australia's experience... apparently you're not very interested in the truth yourself. Because, to you, there's no way that having a gun vs not having a gun could possibly change what happens to a mentally unstable person, no siree.

            •  O rly? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              "Suicide prevention is one of the primary benefits of strong gun control/firearms bans"

              Japan has an almost total ban on guns, and the highest suicide rate on Earth. Must not be a very significant benefit.

          •  Erroneous (0+ / 0-)
            Banning an item that is convenient to it's execution will not diminish suicide rates.
            You statement is wrong on the facts.  Objective empirc studies of suicide tell us that removing an opportunity to kill oneself reduces the number of completed suicides.  

            That is why they put tall fences on high bridges or around the public observation platforms of tall buildings.
             

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 07:38:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You cannot remove the opportunity (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              to commit suicide.

              Rope, pestacides and a warm bath with a razor are all very effective methods having little to do with guns.

              If you remove guns, another method will be chosen in their place, for those who actually intend to kill themselves, versus crying for help.

              •  Wrong again (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mudfud27

                It is entirely possible - and done on a regular basis - to reduce opportunities to commit suicide.

                Again, that is why bridge builders put high fences on the pedestrian walkways of tall bridges: to reduce the opportunity to commit suicide.

                Without the tall fences, people jump off the bridge to their deaths.  With the fences in place, fewer people are able to jump off the bridge to their death.

                Some of those thwarted jumpers find other ways to kill themselves.  You are correct that it is not possible to eliminate ALL methods of killing oneself.

                Objective empirc studies of people who have tried but failed to kill themselves shows us that the MAJORITY of people who have been blocked in a suicide attempt DO NOT die by suicide, nor even make subsequent attmepts at suicide.  So there is evidence that blocking or stopping a suicide attempt does indeed save lives.

                Besides, do you really want to be the guy yelling "Jump!" at the poor soul standing on a high ledge, just so you aren't inconvenienced in your playing with your guns?

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 08:19:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US & (0+ / 0-)

                  virtually zero firearms.

                  "inconvenienced"
                  Is warrantless wiretaps simply an 'inconvenience' as well?
                  I don't find liberties to be inconveniences. Why do you?

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 09:42:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The fact that Japan has a higher rate (0+ / 0-)

                    The fact that Japan has a higher rate of suicide (can you please provide a supporting reference?) is not an argument for ignoring or eliminating gun laws here in the USA.

                    While guns sales have increased every year since 2000, Americans have seen increased restrictions on a wide number of civil rights.  So more guns DOES NOT result in more rights, freedoms, or liberties.

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 11:30:48 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your answer to this: (0+ / 0-)

                      "Americans have seen increased restrictions on a wide number of civil rights."

                      ......is to push for more restrictions on rights?!?

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 11:52:10 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  30,000+ dead would like to enjoy rights (0+ / 0-)

                        Last year, more than 30,000 Americans died due to gunshot injuries.

                        Those 30,000+ dead Americans would like to enjoy their civil rights, and would be doing so today were it not for their needless and preventable deaths due to guns.

                        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:43:33 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Over twice as many people were murdered (0+ / 0-)

                          with bare hands than with all rifles combined. Over six times as many people were murdered with knives than by all rifles combined.

                          If you want to focus on objects instead of murderers, you have a lot of work ahead of you.

                          Further, 3000 people who died on 911 would like to enjoy rights......as such I assume that you are all in favor of the Patriot Act & warrantless wiretaps.

                          For the record I'm not in favor of either the Patriot Act or warrantless wiretaps or AWB, all for the same reason:
                          I do not believe in taking rights from innocent Americans for the acts of murderers.
                          You do.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 10:53:29 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Guns and murders (0+ / 0-)

                            Guns are the instrument of choice for murderers: over 60% of all murders are accomplished by guns.  For every murder accomplished with bare hands, ten or more are accomplished with a gun.

                            If we would like to try and increase the number of people who are able to enjoy their civil rights, reducing the  number of guns available to the public is a good way to do this - because the scientific evidence shows us that the number of guns is positively correlated with the number of gun injuries and gun deaths.

                            As you point out, rifles are rarely used to kill Americans.  I suggest that gun enthusiasts be allowed to keep and bare muzzle-loading flintlock long rifles, just as our founding fathers intended in the constitution.

                            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 01:13:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your proposal is irrelevent. (0+ / 0-)

                            As is your laughable interpretation of what the founding fathers intended.

                            You want to take liberties from innocent Americans for your irrational fears.
                            I don't.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:53:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  None of those methods (0+ / 0-)

                are as effective as a gun. They all present more opportunity for rescue than a gun. This is documented fact (as well as simple common sense).

                Why, in your love for guns, are you so willing to ignore fact, reason, and logic?

            •  Correct. (0+ / 0-)

              And, apparently, an uncomfortable fact for some people here. I wonder why.

        •  Never said that (0+ / 0-)

          "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

          by Texas Lefty on Thu Feb 28, 2013 at 09:30:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Dis-counting deaths (0+ / 0-)

          To partisan gun enthusiasts, the over 30,000 American deaths due to gun fire every year should be discounted or ignored because some of those deaths are suicides.

          Of course, a person dead by suicide is just as dead as a person dead by homicide,  And while homicides are needless and preventable deaths, so too are suicides.

          And nowadays, a good many of those who kill themselves are active duty military personnel or service veterans

          So that they will never be in any way inconvenienced in their gun play, some gun enthusiasts would prefer that large numbers of Americans shoot themselves.

          Which, to me, is kind of like those people who shout "Jump!" to the guy standing on a high ledge.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 07:50:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site