Why has self-defense being considered not a legitmate reason to own a gun in most countries

[bossy22]

This is a question that I have always thought about in regards to other countries gun ownership styles. There are countries in the western world which permit Firearm ownership for self defense- like france and Italy, but the majority of them only consider sporting/collecting a legitimate reason

I would like to know what you think and i ask that this discussion be conducted in a well-thought out manner. Thank you

[Fearless]

1. No one in this nation is qualified to answer that question... anything said will be pandering

to one side or the other.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. Good qustion.

I suspect that those in power would prefer that the citizens not be armed.

[HeresyLives]

3. Well, in Canada

which is the only country I can speak for, you're not considered to be under threat. We have a low crime rate here, but if anything does happen, you're expected to call the police.

So hunting, collecting or competition shooting are the only reasons to have a gun.

[iverglas]

10. just to clarify

Except for restricted (and of course prohibited) firearms, an applicant for a licence does not have to state a reason for acquiring or possessing firearms.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/online-en_ligne/form-assistance/PDFs/921_e.pdf

In the case of handguns, the applicant must qualify for a restricted firearms licence and either be a member of an approved sports shooting club or qualify as a "collector".

The actual reason why anyone wishes to acquire a firearm is locked up in his/her head.

[Howzit]

14. Does anyone in Canada have armed bodyguards?

If so, I am assuming that these people have weapons specifically for defending life?

If some have their lives defended by force of arms, why not recognize the same potential need in all others, or are some people more valuable than others?

Does that mean defending others is OK, but self-defence is not?

[iverglas]

16. I'll bet the PM does

They would be members of the RCMP.

Was that what you had in mind? Protecting the head of government from possible assaults? Members of the national police service being employed to protect the head of government and carrying firearms for that purpose? Like that?

Maybe you had something else in mind. Let me know if you have further questions.


Perhaps you've heard this tale ...

http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010514

While the government will not get a look until later this week at an RCMP report about how a man armed with a knife ended up at the door of Chrétien's bedroom in the small hours of Sunday, Nov. 5, authorities already have tightened the security cordon around the Prime Minister. And Chrétien may well be forgiven for the hope that never again will he have to pick up an Inuit stone carving from his nightstand and prepare to defend himself against a potential assassin.

The break-in, only hours after the assassination in Tel Aviv of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on Nov. 4, might make for a compelling TV drama if it had not been such a horribly close call. "It was good in a way" that the intruder had a knife, Chrétien said last week en route from Rabin's funeral to Australia. "If he had a gun ..." There was no need to finish the sentence. ...

... Some of the facts surrounding the break-in became clear last week. Aline Chrétien woke up about 2:45 a.m. on Sunday morning after hearing a noise in the three-storey stone mansion that stands next to a cliff above the Ottawa River. She got up to investigate, and in the hallway outside the Chrétiens' bedroom came face-to-face with a man carrying a jackknife and putting a glove on one hand. He had entered the house by breaking a side-door window. She retreated to the bedroom, locked the door and woke her husband. He did not believe what she told him. "You're dreaming," he replied, as he later related to journalists what had happened. As Madame Chrétien locked a second door to the room, the Prime Minister, to defend himself, grabbed a 15-inch Inuit stone carving of a loon. If the man had broken into the room, "he would have had one big headache," Chrétien said. The Prime Minister has often praised his wife for her political acumen; last week it was time to thank her for saving his life. "I am lucky she was there," he told reporters. "And I am grateful."

[jody]

4. Because in America, each individual is considered a sovereign entity with certain natural, inherent,

inalienable rights.

Free-thinking scholars in the Age of Enlightenment introduced the concept of natural rights as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs, e.g. divine right of kings or the pope.

That thinking was embodied in the BOR and PA (1776) and VT (1777) citizens threw off the "divine right of kings" and enshrined "natural rights" in their constitutions. They declared "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

To give power to the authority of each individual's "natural rights, PA and VT then said, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

The words "natural", "inherent", "inalienable" show the source or basis of rights from the perspective of those who entered into the social contract we know as the Pennsylvania and Vermont Constitutions.

"Natural" means from nature and not from a monarch or religious leader.

"Inherent" means each human posseses those rights.

"Inalienable" means a right cannot be given away.

Fast forward to the last part of the 20st century and we find a strident minority wanting to replace "natural rights" with the "divine right of government" and use government power to take away without authority a right that sovereign people have declared inalienable.

[HeresyLives]

6. Well, actually

we voted for it.

[jody]

7. I assume you know that votes cannot take away an inalienable right so for what did you vote? n/t

[iverglas]

8. nonono, you don't understand

The USofA is the only place on earth where free men roam free. The rest of us are subjugated subjects, living in some universe where all things flow from the state downward to us peons, who must beg for our few rights and freedoms at the foot of, I dunno. Michaëlle Jean or somebody.

You know -- that's why we no laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, no laws that interfere in women's reproductive rights, no "free speech zones" -- none of that really good shit that they got down there in the USofA, where free men roam free ...

Just ask jody. If he hasn't put you on ignore yet. ;)

[gorfle]

21. We understand fine.

The USofA is the only place on earth where free men roam free. The rest of us are subjugated subjects, living in some universe where all things flow from the state downward to us peons, who must beg for our few rights and freedoms at the foot of, I dunno. Michaëlle Jean or somebody.

No one has claimed that the USofA is the only place on earth where free men roam free. What we claim is that the USofA is one of the few places on earth where should our freedoms be in jeopardy, we have the means to resist by force of arms. The rest of you may indeed enjoy rights and freedoms, but you enjoy them at the whim of your government. Hopefully, your governments will forevermore be benign and bend to the will of their people. Our founding fathers were skeptical of that outcome and so set up a system whereby the citizens would always have the means to defend their liberty by force of arms should it be necessary.

You know -- that's why we no laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, no laws that interfere in women's reproductive rights, no "free speech zones" -- none of that really good shit that they got down there in the USofA, where free men roam free ...

As I've said before, Iverglas, things are bad, and people are angry. They just aren't angry enough to start shooting over it yet, and thankfully so. This does not negate the intentions of our founding fathers nor the wise choice to be armed should things get bad enough that the people are angry enough to start shooting over it.

[Sanctified]

26. Can we vote in Slavery? n/t

[iverglas]

27. maybe you'll be the one to do it

Take that analogy -- firearms control = enslaving human beings -- over to one of the forums here at DU where they might enjoy it.

Someplace like "African-American Issues". I'll bet you'd find a huge and appreciate audience for the proposition there. Won't you give it a shot, and let us know how it goes?

While you're at it, could you ask jody where all the felons in the US left their inalienable rights? They seem to have lost track of them.

[Sanctified]

28. So only African-Americans can be slaves?

Maybe you should bring that up in one of those forums.

[apocalypsehow]

29. So only spaghetti can be a noodle?

That makes as about as much sense as you do.

Maybe we should petition the Admins for a "literacy and basic English comprehension" forum, and I should moderate it. I have a feeling it would be a hoot.

[Sanctified]

30. I asked if slavery could be voted in.

She told me to take the question to an African-American forum, she obviously believes only blacks can be slaves.

[iverglas]

32. and you obviously believe that every one who posts here

is too stupid for words.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

39. just me is too stupid for words?

Are you quite sure you meant to say that, or would you perhaps be wanting to edit your post before someone does it for you?

[Sanctified]

41. I will edit my post right after you edit yours. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

45. Must be Jedi mind tricks, then...

Cause this is how those of us who can both read and see straight have been following the conversation so far:

You said: "Can we vote in Slavery?"

Another poster replied: "Take that analogy -- firearms control = enslaving human beings -- over to one of the forums here at DU where they might enjoy it."

You said in return: "So only African-Americans can be slaves?"

Now, I had no trouble understanding the poster's point: You were saying that one category of a thing (firearms control) was analogous and equivalent to another category of a thing, namely slavery. I mean, that was the plain inference, wasn't it? Why else post "Can we vote in Slavery?"

The poster's response to you seemed to me an attempt to bring reason before your eyes; to allow you to reflect on just how offensive the (attempted) analogy truly was.

Let's go about this another way, just so we're clear. Where I'm at, they don't like folks using their cell phones in their vehicles. So they regulate it by imposing a hefty fine if you are caught doing so by law enforcement officials. I don't care much for this law, since I use my cell phone quite a bit while running around. Now, let's suppose I posted in a forum dedicated to the love of cell phones the following concerning that policy: "Can we vote in another Holocaust?" See how utterly offensive such a statement would be?

Which is precisely what you did, the only difference being that the offensive analogy was an attempted link between gun control and slavery.

Further, that response - "So only African-Americans can be slaves?" - is called a non-sequitur. I've posted a handy definition below for you convenience:

non sequitur

Main Entry:
non se·qui·tur Listen to the pronunciation of non sequitur
Pronunciation:
\ˈnän-ˈse-kwə-tər also -ˌtu̇r\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, it does not follow
Date:
1540

1: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent 2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

And look! Here's another example of a big fat stinking one right here!: She told me to take the question to an African-American forum, she obviously believes only blacks can be slaves.

I swear, some days "Lord have mercy" just doesn't quite cover it.


Edit to clean up some grammar.

[iverglas]

46. have I introduced you to Pellet Gun Bill?

I know I showed someone the way recently, but I think you may have missed it. It can't be missed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=10520

Three people in that thread sorely missed at times like these.

[apocalypsehow]

47. LOL! "non-sequituritis" - bookmarked. You know, before they allow

an eager soul to post an OP in GD: P these days, a screen comes up that basically says "STOP! READ THIS BEFORE YOU PROCEED!"

They should do the same in this tidy corner of the DU - with that thread attached as a warning of what lies ahead...

My personal favorite from "Pellet Gun Bill":

"I find it truly appalling that the Gun Control Zealots revel in the deaths of children and other innocents in their attempts stomp all over our civil rights"

(!) :rofl:

The whole thing's got to be worth a "pin" to the top of this forum, at the very least.

[iverglas]

48. I gotta say

I've got it bookmarked twice, and I still become incoherent with snorting every time I hit poor PertUK's post.

My favourite has to be

Next ban "rubber bands and paper clips". eom

from the master of not reading anything but the post titles.

[iverglas]

9. "Inalienable" means a right cannot be given away.

Actually, it also means it cannot be TAKEN away.

Funny how all those "felons" seem to have mislaid their natural inherent inalienable whatever right to have gunz in the US, isn't it?

Unlike in Canada ... just f'r instance.

[enfield collector]

12. so in Canada they give felons gun licenses?

[iverglas]

18. in Canada we don't have "felons"

and we generally find the practice of identifying people by a single personal characteristic -- like "the handicapped" -- to be outmoded and offensive.

There is no bar to being issued a firearms acquisition and possession licence in Canada except an express bar in the form of a firearms prohibition order. Those orders are commonly made at the time a person is sentenced for certain types of criminal offences -- firearms related offences, violent offences and drug-trafficking offences, e.g. They can also be made in other circumstances, on application to a court.

An individual who had been convicted of a non-violent indictable offence (equivalent to felony) and, say, needed firearms for subsistence hunting would in all likelihood be given a licence, as I understand it.

Being convicted of a criminal offence does not result in civil death in Canada. Several years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, for instance, that inmates in penitentiaries may vote. (There had never been any bar to anyone with a criminal conviction, including people on parole or probation, voting.) The federal bar on inmates voting was ruled to be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Generally speaking, criminal laws or policies that do not allow for individualization are prohibited by the interpretation of our Constitution that has been adopted by the courts. In a few rare instances -- repeat drunk driving offences, murder, offences involving firearms -- the Court defers to Parliament and does not strike down mandatory minimum sentences. Generally speaking, it is considered that the principles of fundamental justice (which include but are broader than due process) require that judicial discretion be permitted so that sentences can be individualized.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

Legal Rights

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

A whole lot of things taken for granted in the US -- denying the vote to people with criminal records, blanket denial of legal access to firearms, three-strikes laws, most of your mandatory minimum sentences -- would be regarded as completely unconstitutional and contrary to fundamental rights up here. And we add to the list of what is unacceptable as things come up and society progresses: banning same-sex marriage, for instance.

All thanks to that cousin of mine, of course.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Sankey

[iverglas]

24. but of course the real question remains

How did all those "felons" manage to mislay that INALIENABLE right of theirs?

[jmg257]

35. I thought UNalienable rights can't be taken away, while INalienable can be surrendered by choice...

what are the proper definitions? IS there a difference?

Edit: found this..

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

[iverglas]

38. I think you're getting your law in a crackerjack box

http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

I've always thought that "unalienable" was a quaint turn of phrase used by your founders & framers to express the notion that is today expressed in the word "inalienable". There is absolutely no distinction bewteen "un-" and "in-" in English.

That source, or whatever that source's source might be, seems to have found a definition applied to each term and then juxtaposed them as if there was a difference. I'm seeing a distinction with no difference at all.

As far as:

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

-- well, I'd have to hunt that up and see what it might actually be authority for, and I could pretty much assure you it isn't authority for anything outside the state in question, and any other US state that happens to adopt it. No Canadian court would apply that definition, I can assure you.

A definition that characterizes something as "a gift from the creator" is, of course, entirely meaningless and of no use in the modern world.

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, ...

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. ...

Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

I don't actually think that the nations that signed the Declaration had in mind that people could barter away their right to life, etc.

[RC]

5. This Nation all but wiped out the real owners with guns and just

didn't know when to stop. The nations in Europe were there all along.

Religion and guns are a lethal combination.

[SteveM]

15. The "real owners" were equipped with guns (sometimes better ones)...

No one can excuse the killing/extirpation of Native Americans (and some would argue, the Spanish/Mexicans). The "nations in Europe were there all along" -- having huge wars.

"Religion and guns are a lethal combination" -- And before there were guns, religion and swords were a lethal combination. I think you would be more accurate in saying: "Religion and WAR are a lethal combination."

An aside: I still can't quite pinpoint the motivation for the Iraq war. Some say it is latter-day imperialism, and that has merit. But I see a lot of the Manifest Destiny you reference in your comments, esp. about providing "superior institutions" with which to displace existing cultures and values. Imperialism, for the most part, wasn't interested in such a displacement. It was interested in using the existing cultures to extract wealth, allowing break-down and causing cultural collapse only as necessary. The U.S. seems to be using the principle of cultural conversion as a fundamental reason for war. Manifest Destiny going East!

[HeresyLives]

11. This thread asked about

countries OTHER than the United States, so I told you about Canada. I think there is a great deal of confusion here as to what country you're now discussing.

I own guns, so I know what the laws are, and I know what we voted for. In Canada.

[SteveM]

13. I suspect the difference lies more with the attitude toward self-defense...

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The inalienable right to life is seen as inseparable from the right to bear arms in the United States; after all, how can one practically defend life without a weapon suitable for the times? In the U.S., I believe, great suspicion has been cast upon the notion of self-defense to preserve one's right to life. Those who are uncomfortable with self-defense generally support the notion that agencies and bureaus of the government have the duty to defend life, even down to the level of home-invasion, and have thereby sought to weaken the individual's capacity for self-defense. The attacks on self-defense use the firearm as a mighty icon, able to evoke fear, loathing and animosity toward millions of fellow-Americans; yet this is ultimately an agent for the "deeper" belief that individuals should not be defending life.

Coupled to all this is a rather vulgar form of pacifism which doesn't allow for self-defense. But Gandhi wouldn't allow a mass murder to go down without resistance -- even on the individual level -- and would not condemn individuals who killed and used violence to prevent attacks on life, the home, religion and property.

The "U.S." version of pacifism and the gun-control movement are rather modern, hence the expression that the Second Amendment is "obsolete and irrelevant."

[iverglas]

19. nah, not at all

I suspect the difference lies more with the attitude toward self-defense...

I'm actually quite certain that the difference lies in the attitude of people toward other people.


The attacks on self-defense use the firearm as a mighty icon, able to evoke fear, loathing and animosity toward millions of fellow-Americans; yet this is ultimately an agent for the "deeper" belief that individuals should not be defending life.

Actually, there are multiple very powerful forces at work in the US that work hard to evoke fear and loathing of, and animosity toward, just about everybody, especially people who are a different colour, speak a different language or practise a different religion from the majority.

And that's why some members of that majority feel, or claim to feel, the need to be constantly armed in order to defend themselves against the feared, loathed and hated.

yet this is ultimately an agent for the "deeper" belief that individuals should not be defending life.

The "deeper" belief actually in play is the belief on some people's part that some other people don't have any right to life at all.

Coupled to all this is a rather vulgar form of pacifism which doesn't allow for self-defense.

Apart from the fact that what you're attempting to couple it to is horseshit, I doubt you'd find one person in yer average shopping mall in the USofA whose beliefs didn't allow for self-defence.

The "U.S." version of pacifism and the gun-control movement are rather modern, hence the expression that the Second Amendment is "obsolete and irrelevant."

Actually, the notion that a powerful modern nation needs to have its population armed to the teeth to defend against insurrection or invasion is rather unassailable, hence the conclusion that your Second Amendment is "obsolete and irrelevant".

[SteveM]

22. Old and defeated arguments you are using...

People have attitudes toward other people for reasons: self-defense is one of them. You see this attitude in these posts.

Frankly, the "feared, loathed and hated" have more ability to defend themselves now than in my lifetime, with the end of racist gun-control laws, esp. in the South. Unfortunately, the "loathed" poor in big cities often are left without the tools of self-defense.

Who are these people who believe that "other people don't have any right to life at all"? Are they a force, a class, an organization? Let's sort 'em out so we can deal with them.

"yer average shopping mall" probably WOULD have folks with a more reasonable approach to self-defense, more reasonable than some of the stuff put out here. Incidentally, your mall example implies the unpopularity of extreme pacifism.

A "powerful modern nation" is a reason for the RKBA in general and the militia in particular. BTW, those running a "powerful modern nation" often don't want its "population armed to the teeth," as we have seen. This was anticipated by the Framers.

I wonder why you didn't address the over-reliance by "modern liberals" on government agencies and bureaus to defend the population?

[iverglas]

25. first, forgive me for not making sense there

I said:

Actually, the notion that a powerful modern nation needs to have its population armed to the teeth to defend against insurrection or invasion is rather unassailable, hence the conclusion that your Second Amendment is "obsolete and irrelevant".

When of course I meant that the notion that a powerful modern nation etc. etc. is rather untenable, or some other variation on that sentence that would have conveyed the intended meaning.


People have attitudes toward other people for reasons: self-defense is one of them. You see this attitude in these posts.

Whew, talk about not making sense. Sorry, can't make head nor tail of that one.


Frankly, the "feared, loathed and hated" have more ability to defend themselves now than in my lifetime, with the end of racist gun-control laws, esp. in the South. Unfortunately, the "loathed" poor in big cities often are left without the tools of self-defense.

Yes, except I was talking about something actually real. The feared, loathed and hated as imaginary bogeymen, the ones who are out to git ya, against whom the regular folks need to defend themselves.


Incidentally, your mall example implies the unpopularity of extreme pacifism.

Uh, yes. What did you imagine it was supposed to mean? You dragged in some imaginary "extreme pacifism" position that would preclude self-defence and that is apparently in favour in some quarters, and I said your cast of characters was made of straw.


A "powerful modern nation" is a reason for the RKBA in general and the militia in particular. BTW, those running a "powerful modern nation" often don't want its "population armed to the teeth," as we have seen. This was anticipated by the Framers.

Ah, they were an omniscient bunch of dead rich white guys, weren't they just?

"As we have seen". If we're wearing those funny specs, I presume.


I wonder why you didn't address the over-reliance by "modern liberals" on government agencies and bureaus to defend the population?

You mean, why I didn't address your idiosyncratic characterization of a situation, with which I don't agree?

I wonder.

[SteveM]

42. You are forgiven...

However, you say:

Uh, yes. What did you imagine it was supposed to mean? You dragged in some imaginary "extreme pacifism" position that would preclude self-defense and that is apparently in favor in some quarters, and I said your cast of characters was made of straw.

This "straw" is present in the "quarters" of the Democratic Party's leaders, MS editorial rooms, and the higher political offices of a number of American cities. It is MS M's persistent -- and unethical -- pushing of the gun-control agenda which keeps the gun-control "movement" alive. In these threads, there is a disdain among "controllers" for the notion of self-defense which is obvious through any eye wear. Concomitantly, gun-control sentiment continues to advocate LEO's as the preferred alternative to self-defense, even when police departments are not charged with crime-prevention.

As usual, you continue to use race and sexism to "support" your arguments. No funny specs needed to see that.

[iverglas]

43. can ya please try to hold the thought?

This "straw" is present in the "quarters" of the Democratic Party's leaders, MS editorial rooms, and the higher political offices of a number of American cities. It is MS M's persistent -- and unethical -- pushing of the gun-control agenda which keeps the gun-control "movement" alive. In these threads, there is a disdain among "controllers" for the notion of self-defense which is obvious through any eye wear. Concomitantly, gun-control sentiment continues to advocate LEO's as the preferred alternative to self-defense, even when police departments are not charged with crime-prevention.

Your allegation had to do with the spread of some "extreme pacifism" thing that rejected the use of force in self-defence.

Not seeing anything there to back up that allegation. Just a repetition of it.

[spin]

17. Switzerland comes to mind...

In some 2001 statistics it is noted that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million; more liberal estimates put the number at 3 million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Further links on Switzerland:

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/CH/crime.html

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

[iverglas]

20. Ah, a BBC link from 2001.

Look what else happened in 2001 -- from the Wiki article you cite:

In 2001 Swiss citizen Friedrich Leibacher entered a regional Swiss parliament building and used a standard issue Army assault rifle to kill 14 people before killing himself. Strangely enough, this wasn't his personal army issue weapon, but a stolen one. The primary weapons used in the shooting were other, non-military, automatic weapons and some explosive devices.

It is claimed that approximately 300 deaths per year involve the use of Swiss army guns, mostly suicides and family murders. As a result of this and similar media reports, gun control advocates are trying to halt the practice of military weapons issuance and storage in the private homes of Swiss Army members. Gun supporters question the statistics and the practice has become a political issue. As of October 2007, the issuing of personal ammunition after boot camp has been discontinued and a majority of the already issued packs will be withdrawn within 2008.

And even good old Switzerland is being dragged into the modern world:

These rules will be changed — presumably in 2008 — because Switzerland will be joining the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change:

* Unlawful possession of guns will be punished;
* Gun trade among individuals will require a valid buying permit (under today's law, persons with a criminal record can trade guns);
* Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number;
* Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law;

[spin]

23. Very good Iverglas, now I know someone reads the links...

I post. Makes it worth researching.

And yes, I was well aware of what the article stated. When I posted it I was wondering if someone would pick up on the fact that it was a balanced summary.

The object was to post links that would provide material for further discussion.

After all, the original poster bossy22 said:

I would like to know what you think and i ask that this discussion be conducted in a well-thought out manner. Thank you.

A reasonable, non-emotional discussion, while a rarity, is a good idea.


Did you note another link that I posted said:

Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.

and

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

Interesting, eh.

Guns can be used both for good and bad purposes. Self defense, target shooting, hunting and collecting are examples of good purposes. Bad purposes would include suicides, family murders and the criminal misuse of firearms.

It's also possible that the Germans might have avoided invading Switzerland in WW2 because of citizens possessed firearms and were well trained, another example of a good purpose for a firearm:

Another key deterrent factor, Halbrook suggests, was Switzerland's tradition of a popular army--"the people in arms." At one point an astonishing 20 percent of the Swiss population was under arms, a figure unheard of in a modern country officially at peace--or even most countries at war. Every Swiss home had a rifle. Sharpshooting was and is the national sport; each weekend the hills are alive with the sound of gunfire, with fathers delighting in instructing their kids in proper technique. Swiss youths were trained to shoot at 300 meters, Germans at 100. German generals had to consider the example of the Finns, another small nation of skiers and riflemen who had recently held off a Russian invasion far more tenaciously than outsiders expected.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30756.html

Of course, as the article states, this was not the only reason that Germany didn't invade Switzerland. It was, however, an important factor.

The question I have is why does a nation whose gun ownership rate ranks second only to the U.S. have a low murder rate? The U.S. ranks #24, Switzerland ranks #56. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita.

Perhaps the Swiss are a more happy people, more satisfied with their lives. According to one site I found that ranks "subjective well being", Switzerland ranks #8 and the U.S. ranks #15. http://thehappinessshow.com/HappiestCountries.htm (Canada ranks #10)

Although I suspect this the order of this list, as it says Mexico ranks #2, it may be fairly accurate. If so, perhaps we need to elect politicians who will work to solve the problems we have in the U.S. Problems like education, racial inequality, livable wages and rewarding jobs.

If we create a society where people feel they have a fair chance to achieve a good life for themselves and their children we may reduce the root causes of violence and in turn reduce the demand for firearms.

The problem is that we need to find and elect the right politicians. We can return to a country "of the people, by the people, and for the people", rather than one that appears to be "of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations".

[Xenotime]

31. Because you don't need guns for self defense..

Just get an alarm or call a cop.

[bossy22]

33. ......

where to start...hmmm

Alarms- alarms are a good thing to have- they are actually good at deterring, but in reality burglar alarms are usually "ignored" by police

and cops have no legal duty to protect you.....nor can they be there in a moments notice- the fastest police response is 2 minutes- but averages more closely 5 minutes....i'd rather have a gun in that situation. Its not always good to rely on a government agency which many times is seen an inept. The only one responsible for your protection is you.....

Police rarely break up crimes- only come to investigate them.

[jmg257]

36. If I am at home, with the phone in my hand, and the police stationed next door - this could work!

[jody]

44. Please visit DU's Guns forum more often and find out why RKBA is important to law-abiding citizens.

[benEzra]

34. James Madison answered that question a couple hundred years ago...

in Federalist no. 46:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed46.htm

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

(The Federalist, No. 46)

[iverglas]

40. Hey, didn't a pope answer some questions a couple of hundred years ago too?

So we all know that the earth does NOT revolve around the sun, right?

Nothing like the wisdom of the ages ...

Maybe Madison has some advice to offer about how to fix my microwave, too.

[Xela]

49. In Mexico

The constitution guarantees the inhabitants of Mexico the right to self defense with a firearm very clearly (Article 10).

Unfortunately, the law was amended to give all control of firearms, and their use/sale/etc. thereof, to the military.

Xela