The art of the Handebung is a recognized discipline in Switzerland I understand....
God, we can not stand TYT! What a couple-a-dopes...what a pair 'a maroons!

SO
FORKING
WHITE!!

Actually America's GDP is only 1st in the world because our population is 3rd in the world. Our GDP per capita is about 8th.You probably have a better standard of living if you live in Singapore, Norway, Switzerland or Hong Kong. I think we'd be doing even better if were were spending more on education and wasting less on the military.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita

The UK has a higher overall violent crime rate, but a violent crime in the UK is far less likely to kill you. I'd be surprised if the prevalence of guns in the US has nothing to do with things.

Switzerland is a very special case when it comes to gun ownership and gun crime. Switzerland has no standing army. Instead it has a people's militia. Almost every man between the ages of 20 and 30 in the country is conscripted into the militia and receives military weapon training. They have to keep the guns at home as part of the militia.

This means they have a huge percentage of the population who are properly trained to handle a gun. However, they have a lower gun ownership percentage than the US. So, in the US you have a lot more people who own guns, but a lower percentage of these people have the proper training for the weapons. Is it any wonder that they kill more people in the US with the guns?

Also, think about this. Loads of people in switzerland are conscripted into the militia, learn how to handle a gun properly, then get too old to be in the militia and leave, hand back the weapon and go home. A large percentage of these people don't go out and buy a replacement gun for their home.

This tells me there's something else going on here. It isn't the guns keeping them safe, it seems it's deeper than that.

Differences in gun culture go way, way deeper than the figures suggest. In fact, the figures seem to show that there's very little correlation between the rate of gun ownership in a country and the number of homicides with a gun in the country.

Which means it's a cultural thing. So, just saying more guns or less guns will keep us safe means nothing. It's country specific, culture specific.

Homicide Rates -

Switzerland 0.7
United States 4.8
United Kingdom 1.2

I see absolutely no correlation between gun ownership and homicide rate, although I've frequently heard reference to such a notion.

How might gun ownership help a society? Well, it depends on the society doesn't it? Take Switzerland, for instance, which doesn't really have a standing army but inducts citizens into the militia and requires them to keep their firearms at home so they can mobilize quickly in the event of a crisis. I'd say there's a pretty strong benefit to their society (i.e. defense of the nation) in that case.

But I think @dystopianfuturetoday was probably asking about the benefits to a society in the U.S., where gun ownership is optional but also so prevalent So I'll focus on that area.

1) As has already been mentioned, from an economic standpoint, society benefits from the sale of guns and their related items through both taxes and levies and through the provision of jobs for those who produce guns, sell guns, or manage gun ranges. I have absolutely no idea exactly how big or small this benefit is in the U.S. but it certainly exists.

2) Armed citizens can (and do) stop "dangerous situations" from happening long before first responders have a chance to arrive and in some cases before they even have a chance to be notified. "Dangerous situations" here refers not only to crime but attacks by wild animals in rural areas.

3) Deterrence. Certain types of crime become much more risky to the professional criminal if you have to assume everyone is armed at all times.

Given these potential benefits to society, the question really then becomes do these benefits outweigh the costs to society? And also, what of the benefits to the individual? Certainly these must be weighed as well. CNN contributor David Frum wrote an interesting piece last year exploring these issues. You can find it here.

>> ^bmacs27:
I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media.

I don't really agree with this. There really is only one major criticism and that's the amount of death and injury caused by firearms, which is backed up by statistical research rather than media hyperbole.

If you're a 25 year old US citizen you're almost as likely to die by gunshot as you are by a vehicular accident.

You may or may not agree with the justification (I, like you, agree - the world is an inherently dangerous place) but vehicles do bring obvious benefits to society in many ways.

I have a hard time saying the same about guns.

I know a few European countries have a relatively high gun ownership rate (about a third of the US) but without the same death and injury rate, so I agree it's not a simple relationship between ownership and injury. Perhaps it'd be fairer to say that the US' high gun ownership, and their high injury/fatality rate has a common root. I see that as the gun regulations.

Taking Switzerland specifically (which, as you said has half the gun ownership of the US) they have compulsory conscription. I had two separate friends who (both reluctantly) had to do it. They learn how to use their weapons and I believe this has a positive impact on reducing death and injury. Their conscription is not about guns though; using a gun is just one part of that experience.

I don't really agree with the whole concept of mandatory conscription though, so don't see that as a solution.

In Switzerland the issued firearms have to be stored separately from the bolt. Carrying is only permitted when you're called for service, unless you have a specific permit, a valid reason and pass an exam once every 5 years.

In Finland you need a specific reason and evidence in order to gain a gun license such as hunting, sport or your job. Self defense is not a valid reason. Only firearms appropriate to your license purpose can be purchased.

In Iceland you have to take compulsory training and exams before you can get a license for a shotgun. Self defense with a firearm is not a valid reason for a license. A year of training is required for a handgun license. Semi automatic and automatic weapons are illegal. You can't buy ammunition for weapons you are not licensed for. Licenses are only granted by your local chief of police. Licenses are only granted for hunting, sport, or collecting.

France, again you need a hunting or sport license, and they limit the amount and type of ammunition you can purchase. You can only purchase firearms appropriate to your license class (hunting rifles for hunters, etc).

In Austria you need to pass a psychological test, and pass a shooting exam every 2 years. Non sport weapons require evidence of requiring them from your employer (such as the police).

They all have laws about storing weapons in lockable closets; and laws against carrying (you can only carry a weapon to the place of purpose, and in a manner that accords to regulations) with the exception of Germany which requires training, tests, an additional license and a provable reason for requirement to carry; such as your job.

If your justification for gun ownership is hunting, sport or collecting then why object to implementing these kind of controls?

>> ^L0cky:

>> ^bmacs27:
Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.


Hence why I said most.


Which is what I figured, however, if you take a look at the noise in the numbers, Switzerland is within noise of Iceland, Germany, Austria, France, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Would you still call it most?

For every enthusiast per capita the US has like this guy, Switzerland has one with half as many guns. Does it really make a difference? Is Europe really that different?

Frankly, I come from the North East. I still feel an attachment to the revolution, and if you think about, it wasn't that long ago. The minutemen weren't paranoid, they were prudent. And they were packing cannon, the nuclear arms of their day. While I think it's worth carefully considering where lines are drawn, e.g. "small" arms, I think most criticism of gun ownership is alarmist, and heavily influenced by confirmation bias and sensationalist media. Sure they're dangerous. But so are lots of things. Accepting a dangerous world is the cost of living in a free society.

I'm sympathetic to the view that "well regulated militias" should probably keep large stores of arms away from their residences, and certainly children. However, we have no strong evidence this guy has kids around. I guess we can quibble about fire, however there is not particularly much in the way of ammunition present. Remember, guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Personally, I suspect this guy is a gun salesman. That would explain the quantity of guns, and the relative lack of ammunition. Further, it would explain the youtube video that appears to be an advertisement for a gun cabinet. I don't begrudge this guy his vocation.

>> ^bmacs27:

Like Switzerland, right?
>> ^L0cky:
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.



Hence why I said most.

>> ^bmacs27:

What about swords? Should I be able to collect swords?


Personally I'm undecided. I think sword deaths and injuries may be rare; I can't find any statistical data on them, which in itself possibly supports that; or they just get thrown in with knives and other sharp objects; and a wholesale banning of sharp things would be highly impractical.

They are practically banned in Japan though; who would have thought?

They are also banned in Washington DC; and in the UK (unless you jump through lots of hoops proving you are a genuine collector).

Ultimately I don't have a strong opinion on it either way.

>> ^bmacs27:

You realize that they are ranked 129th and 99th in gun ownership per capita right? Further, you realized that those rankings put them well below just about every country in Europe? Did you have a point or were just assuming that poor people purchase expensive firearms instead of food in order to kill each other because the impoverished can't possibly be civilized?
>> ^L0cky:
You know, like Liberia or Mozambique.



I wasn't assuming anything, I was referring specifically to teaching children how to use firearms, which was done by both the NPFL in the Liberian civil war; and pretty much everyone in Mozambique's civil war, and those children (as young as 10) were actually used in the wars.

It's horrifying, and probably a bit of an extreme reference, but my point is we shouldn't need to teach children to use guns in the first place.

Like Switzerland, right?

>> ^L0cky:

That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.

I also, when you don't tax them enough and allow loopholes, they just park their money in The Caymans & Switzerland; trickle-down my ass!

>> ^manadren:

The fact is that Reagan sold them all on this idea of supply side economics. That if you lower taxes on the rich, they will invest that money in business, which in turn creates jobs. There is a certain logic to this, but the truth off the matter is that supply don't mean shit if you don't have demand. No business is going to hire more widget makers if no one is buying widgets. Demand comes from the bottom. People with less money spend a larger proportion of it.

As much as I would like to agree with you that the government doesn't feel sorry for spending tax money; we have been led to believe that tax breaks and loopholes for the rich specifically, did not and will create more jobs. After 11 years of practice, this proved to be a fruitless that only benefited the upper echelon. You want an example? Take Romney's money in Switzerland and The Cayman Island for example. I am sure he has the right to do with his money whatever he wants, but a show of good faith would be to invest that money back into the economy (tickle-down) instead of parking it overseas. That, I have a HUGE problem with.

I would be taxed more under a re-elected Obama, and I don't mind that because of the greater good. Today, he is the lesser of two evils. I would vote for Romney if he actually believed what he said, but his actions and his words don't go together - see previous paragraph.

It would be dishonest for anyone to think that lowering taxes alone, or cutting the deficit alone would stop the hemorrhaging.

>> ^quantumushroom:

When tax rates are lowered, government revenue increases.
When tax rates are raised, the wealthy scapegoats remove monies from the system, either by parking them in things like tax-exempt bonds or investing in countries with lower tax rates.
However Obama tries to explain away what we on the right have known and have empirical evidence to back it up, his results have been negative. Such failure should not be rewarded by punishing the rest of us with 4 more years of this rubbish!

Very interesting rant, but I truly hope it was written tongue-in-cheek. The comments bring up one of the central holes in the criticism of school subjects' "uselessness", namely "how does one find out whether one likes/is good at this or that?" Moreover, school democratises (or should democratise) knowledge. Thus, a kid growing up in an uneducated household raised on Jerry Springer and Cartoon Network might discover a love for literature, or physics, etc. via good teaching during the obligatory cursus, and follow an otherwise unlikely career path.

The problem with the US system, for the little I know of it, is that it tailors to the lowest common denominator instead of offering diverse pathways of education/career. I don't want to sound patriotic or anything, but I think the system here in Switzerland is not too shabby (although there is plenty of room for improvement). What the wiki article fails to articulate is that in the last three years of obligatory school (13/14-15/16yo) the different sections tailor to different skills, eg home economics and handyman crafts for the "low level" section, and Latin/Greek and advanced math for the "high level" section.

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

I don't understand why so many people are terrified of guns. They simply aren't scary. Up until the early 1900's, almost every family living in the US had a gun in the house. The United States wouldn't even exist if the colonials hadn't hidden and stockpiled their gun from the British as that was the first thing the British did when moving into a new town.....confiscating the guns. This emasculated the men, most volunteer "soldiers", and made revolt much less likely and population control much more manageable.

The 2nd amendment was created not for hunting or for sport, but for the civil defense of our citizens against tyranny and control. The authors of the constitution remembered how hard it was having weapons removed by government control and wanted to have measure in place to allow citizens to legally carry arms to defend themselves against similar actions in the future. It is a very empowering right.

In 2008, there were 75 deaths by firearm of children aged 1-15, 24 of which were actually suicides that were included in that gun death total. By contrast, 1,543 children of that same age group were killed in moving vehicle accidents and 735 by drowning. Therefore, we should be SIGNIFICANTLY more afraid of cars and pools than of guns by a wide margin, yet we don't have people calling the police because some kids are in a swimming pool or riding in a car.

Every male in Switzerland has a government issued semi-auto rifle. Literally every one (420,000+), yet they have some of the lowest crime rates in the entire world.

"Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). As of 2007, Switzerland had a population of about 7,600,000. This would put the rate of killings or attempted killings with firearms at about one for every quarter million residents yearly. This represents a decline of aggravated assaults involving firearms since the early 1990s. The majority of gun crimes involving domestic violence are perpetrated with army ordnance weapons, while the majority of gun crime outside the domestic sphere involves illegally held firearms." - Wikipedia (of course)

My point is that guns are not inherently dangerous, significantly less in fact than a car or water statistically speaking. Having an armed society is a very good thing. Fearing people with guns only gives the gun power that it wouldn't have otherwise. Yes, there are shitty people out there doing bad things with guns, but I am more afraid of the distracted soccer mom in her minivan talking on the phone while beating her kids in the backseat while jugging a Starbucks latte driving 10 MPH over the limit (which I see all the time) than anyone carrying a gun. A good percentage of armed robberies aren't even committed with real guns, but the power that people without solid gun knowledge gives those guns, even fake, is what makes them dangerous.

Also, just an FYI, there are over 270,000,000 guns held by private citizens in this country yet 14,000 murders were committed by guns in 2010, and gun crime is down 11% since that time. That is a very low number of firearm murders considering how many guns are actually out there.

I am climbing off my soapbox now.