Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  If we believe that people killed with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Texas Lefty, noway2

    guns are somehow more dead, that should be a massive cause for concern.

    However, Switzerland clocks in at 0.70 total homicides per 100,000 - an extremely low rate, even by the standards of Western Europe.

    Are you interested in saving lives, or in making sure teh ebil guns don't do it?

    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 03:35:02 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  ? I think you meany to say: guns don't kill ... nt (3+ / 0-)

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 04:06:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you intend to argue with a figment of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        your imagination.

        I'm saying exactly what I intend to - that reasonable gun laws save lives, and that people with irrational and purely emotional relationships with guns who insist on denying plainly observable facts are of a kind no matter which positions they stake out.

        They aren't fighting about guns - they're having a purely irrational round of the American sport of "Culture War".

        Reality isn't ever part of that game.

        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 05:13:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  well, yes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      semiot, cotterperson

      if you want to prevent deaths, the general research is pretty clear that events with guns (both assaults and suicides) are more deadly, and reducing the numbers of guns in society reduces the number of deaths, especially from events like bar fights and arguments.   Really, this data is pretty unequivocal on this point.  The US could save thousands of lives a year by eliminating guns.  

      So, yes, this should be a massive cause for concern.  HOwever, many feel these excess deaths are an acceptable cost for society to pay to have guns easily available.  We make a similar decision with respect to the level of environmental regulation (which could be tighter, saving lives) and traffic (which could be made safer or abandoned, saving lives.

      So, the debate is precisely whether the thousands of lives loss should be a cause for massive concern.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Fri Mar 01, 2013 at 06:18:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (0+ / 0-)

        This really gets to the true heart of the matter. A great many decisions like the ones you point out have costs and benefits, and it is reasonable to debate all of them.

        I see the benefits of transportation that could be said to justify some level of risk. I see the benefits of pesticides and fertilizers and fossil fuels and many other such things. They all deserve open discussions about how best to maximize the benefit and minimize the risk.

        Why are we not able to have this discussion about firearms in this country?

        (I, personally, would also welcome a reasonable explanation of the great benefit of firearms that justifies their availability in the face of their obvious risks. To date, no such pro-gun argument has ever been made.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site