Arming public reduces crime

The anti-gun folk also never figure in the number of people saved by the use of guns.

 

A poor remark on two counts. First, 'anti-gun folk' are rare. Typically we just see people who acknowledge a desire to achieve the well-being gains achievable through rational regulation. Second, those referring to empirical evidence will automatically include any 'people saved by the use of guns'. You'd have to misunderstand the nature of the empirical evidence to suggest otherwise

 

Very well said.

He also, as other anti-control members are prone, to ignore the number of times guns are used to harass, threaten and intimidate.

 

And, by definition, that ensures that they adopt a stance inconsistent with freedom and the support of individualism!

 

Luckily anti-gun folk are fewer than pro-Second amendment folk. I also beleive that there is already some rational regulations on the books, yet anti-gun folk still want more.

 

This can all be accomplished without the use of weapons.

 

It can be done without the use of firearms for sure.

 

The gun fetish position is based on a libertine approach that, by ignoring social costs, directly attacks freedom. Those in favour of optimal gun control twin an appreciation of freedom with an inherently positive view of firearms (given its about celebrating personal preferences without coercing a harmful outcome on others)

 

As can self defense. What's your point?

 

It looks like you fell for a classic bait and switch. That particular member had posted a complaint that

"The anti-gun folk also never figure in the number of people saved by the use of guns."​

NOW, he's switched from a specific focus on a positive function of gun ownership to an avoidance of negative functions of gun ownership. His avoidance takes the form of switching the focus from guns to something else.

You usually spot these things.

 

We've been through this already. Your idea of a fee on guns that attempts to recoup so-called social implications, is a joke, and would do nothing for gun control.

 

The point is, why single out guns?

 

Why, only because YOU did. You had stated:
"The anti-gun folk also never figure in the number of people saved by the use of guns."




Why the bait and switch?

 

My stance is based on valid analysis that appreciates the impact of coercion on outcome. Your 'head in the sand' reaction is essentially an open support for that attack on freedom. Anti-gun? Your assault on indvidualism should count

 

I said, "Why single out guns?" in response to this from you.

"He also, as other anti-control members are prone, to ignore the number of times guns are used to harass, threaten and intimidate."

No bait and switch.

 

More fees on guns would only serve to discriminate against the poor, who wish to protect themselves, but cannot.

How am I an assault on individualism?

 

Internalising externalities ensure that we face the true cost of our preferences.

You demand that we ignore the coercion imposed on others. Its essentially libertine folly where freedom is deliberately perverted to allow for a result that damages well-being

 

sigh,....... Yes, I know. I'm surprised that you cannot see that I was responding to your post where you were isolating the gun effect. It's troubling that you cannot see the thread between our two quotes.

 

Translation: Adding baseless fees to gun prices does nothing to stop crime, yet discriminates against the poor.

I demand nothing. What coercion is being imposed on others?

 

Either way, it is pointless.

 

You continue to ignore basic rationality

Of course you do. You demand that we ignore the social costs imposed by our personal preferences. Your position is incompatible with the pursuit of freedom

 

I came in late here, and am not going to go through 58 pages of posts. But I think I know what you are talking about.

Switzerland has among the lowest crime rates in the world. And every male citizen under the age of 50 keeps a rifle at home as part of their membership in the national Militia. In other words, almost all males have a SIG SG-550 in their home, and 50 rounds of ammunition.

And when they leave the militia, they are given the option to keep their weapon. The government removes the ability to fire fully automatic, but otherwise it is unchanged. And private purchase of 5.56mm ammunition is subsidized so members can afford to affordably practice on their own.

This may well be the article that the the OP is talking about.

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

 

There's also evidence that the crime data has displayed severe under-reporting. Also note that the gun herd rarely refer to any empirical evidence into the Swiss position, preferring instead the standard spurious limitation

 

That is the case in almost every place in the world.

My car was broken into 4 times in the last 2 years, but we never bothered to report it. After all, why bother? They would never catch the guys that did it, and it might impact my insurance rates. Better to just suck it up and pretend it never happened.

In fact, my vehicles have probably been broken into or vandalized 15 times in the last 25 years. Out of all the times, it was only reported once. And this was because my wife happened to catch them in the act.

When caught, one of the 3 punks approached my wife with the steel pipe he used to break the window. However, he dropped the pipe and he and his buddies took off once my wife pulled out our pistol.

 

I'm not referring to general 'hidden crime' effect (which tend to be also related to the business cycle). This is a Swiss specific effect where criminologist has focused on cultural effects.

Given how often the Swiss are used in gun debate, there's actually a surprisingly sparse academic literature on the topic. That literature certainly doesn't give the pro-gun lobby an unwavering support. For example, the link between gun prevalence and suicide rates is confirmed.