Why Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world

Traak · 2012-03-04, 10:54 PM

Knowing that every single home in the country has an assault rifle and ammunition in it might help deter people from crime?

Effective · 2012-03-05, 07:49 PM

While it is indeed a relatively peaceful country.

There are 15 countries that rank higher on the GPI currently, and most of them have lower homicide/murder rates.

Warborn · 2012-03-05, 08:33 PM

Crime is very much a byproduct of poverty and other social ills. Whether there are guns or not in people's homes doesn't seem to matter. The USA has more guns per person than any other country on the planet, and its overall crime rate, and especially homicide rate, are pathetic compared to France or Canada or places where there are far fewer guns per person. I am not aware of any evidence to support the idea that firearm possession actually deters crime.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-06, 12:25 PM

Switzerland is a safe place because its got a nice culture with little poverty. Poverty is, by far, the greatest indicator of violent crime. When everyone is warm, content, well fed, and without serious worries about money, there is not a lot of crime.

I concede the guns may help a small bit, though.

Firefly · 2012-03-06, 12:38 PM

I agree. Guns only help a small amount. I know gun-owners who have been robbed, gun owners who have had their weapon/s stolen.

And now let me think like Traak, Westboro's Finest (thank you Effective for that moniker), would think:

Black people live in the projects. The projects are full of gangs. Gang members own guns. The projects are full of guns and drive-by shootings. And black people. Who commit crimes. So since there are guns in the projects, and there is crime, guns must not be a 100%, or even 50%, deterrent against crime.

Vecha · 2012-03-06, 12:41 PM

Yeah...I think jobs and working on poverty would do a bit more to help lower crime rate than giving everyone a free 9mm.

starshine · 2012-03-16, 03:32 AM

take away all guns from all civilians and the criminals would start using knives and machetes.

crime has to be solved at its root which is just lack of money/jobs or the lack of an ability to get jobs (coz of bad education for example).

starshine · 2012-03-16, 03:39 AM

take away all guns from all civilians and the criminals would start using knives and machetes.

crime has to be solved at its root which is just lack of money/jobs or the lack of an ability to get jobs (coz of bad education for example).

Noivad · 2012-03-21, 02:06 PM

You all miss the point. Guns in the hands of a populace do not only deter crimes comitted by people. Guns deter the crimes comitted by a Nation. Take away the Guns from a populace, which are of course one of the the 1st things to go when a country is taken over by an opressive government. Lose your Guns and you lose your right as a people who are governed to stop an opressive government.

This is only 1 example of of Guns that deter crime.

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Note: This link projects 2012 Crime Rate for Kennesaw.

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-stat.../kennesaw.html

Warborn · 2012-03-21, 02:23 PM

If a populace attempts to fight its government with weapons these days, what you get is something like what Libya got, or what Syria is getting. An even semi-modern military can massacre civilians armed with little more than automatic rifles, RPGs, and maybe some light vehicles. Unless you're advocating a civilian population allow itself to be outfitted with attack helicopters and artillery pieces, you are quite literally at the mercy of your government whether you have a bunch of guns in your closet or not.

In fact, being armed probably makes your situation worse. Your fellow countrymen will be reluctant to shoot you if you're unarmed and no threat to them, even if they're ordered to do so. But if you fight back, you make it that much easier for them to dehumanize you and see you as simply the enemy rather than fellow citizens.

The dream of the citizen body being a military check against government oppression ended when the days of wars being fought by lines of infantry standing around shooting guns at them ended. If England only colonized North America at the outset of this millennium, and the American colonies attempted to revolt against the modern United Kingdom, they would be stomped flat in an instant. The days of the Second Amendment being something relevant have long since ended.

Noivad · 2012-03-21, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

If a populace attempts to fight its government with weapons these days, what you get is something like what Libya got, or what Syria is getting. An even semi-modern military can massacre civilians armed with little more than automatic rifles, RPGs, and maybe some light vehicles. Unless you're advocating a civilian population allow itself to be outfitted with attack helicopters and artillery pieces, you are quite literally at the mercy of your government whether you have a bunch of guns in your closet or not.

In fact, being armed probably makes your situation worse. Your fellow countrymen will be reluctant to shoot you if you're unarmed and no threat to them, even if they're ordered to do so. But if you fight back, you make it that much easier for them to dehumanize you and see you as simply the enemy rather than fellow citizens.

The dream of the citizen body being a military check against government oppression ended when the days of wars being fought by lines of infantry standing around shooting guns at them ended. If England only colonized North America at the outset of this millennium, and the American colonies attempted to revolt against the modern United Kingdom, they would be stomped flat in an instant. The days of the Second Amendment being something relevant have long since ended.

Tell that to the people of North Vietnam when the United States tried to defeat them with modern weapons. Tell that to the Affgans when the then modern Russians invaded their country and left in defeat. Tell that to the people of the United States, whose fore fathers fought against a Britsh Empire. The days of the 2nd ammendant have not ended, except perhaps those who would lay their freedoms down for free stuff from a government that wants to control every aspect of their life.

A government that is benevolent does not fear its citzens with guns. A government that is opressive does.

These people who fight for their freedom against governments that opress them by your reasoning will be stomped out. Fellow countryman as you call them have never had a problem stomping out those they sought to control.
These people may lose. They may be stomped out. Especially when free societies fail to help those that are opressed.

Warborn · 2012-03-21, 06:03 PM

Afghanistan and Vietnam are instances where a tenacious guerrilla campaign in very difficult terrain made continuing the invasion not worth the effort for the invading forces. Neither of those have anything to do with what we're talking about. A more accurate assessment is, as I said, Libya or Syria. Places where the government was or is at war with a portion of its population. It is a blood bath on the side of the civilians, and these are countries whose military is much weaker than what most Western countries have.

No Western country has anything to fear from its population militarily. Giving civilians firearms has nothing to do with keeping the government under control. It is a piece of foolishness to suggest that people have guns in their homes these days has anything to do with that.

Figment · 2012-03-21, 06:28 PM

Uhm, the Viet Cong was an organized guerilla army supplied and supported by the USSR and China alike. A jungle war is also not exactly to be compared with US mainland war, if only for the mosquitos. Except for Alabama/Florida maybe.

The Mujahadeen won mostly because the CIA provided them with weapons far more powerful than small fire arms... and kinda fostered their religious fury... Either way, do you support people to have RPGs and bazookas in their houses? (And no, WoW is bad enough, but not that type of RPG).

The fledgling US had an organized militia and trained officers and were almost defeated despite of mostly facing British Loyalist militia. In fact... had they not been declared traitors, they may not even have created their own nation... The USA 'won' the revolutionary war because Spain, France and the Dutch Republic entered the war on the side of US (and supplied them with much better arms than they had at first) and even threatened to invade England. Which... kinda had priority over some colonies not to mention that the logistics were kinda hard for the Brits, getting troops across the Atlantic in large numbers and all.

So no, the right to bear arms has little to do with that.

Firefly · 2012-03-22, 06:12 PM

I as an American soldier would not have in the past, nor in the present, nor in the future, ever fired upon an armed United States citizen in the event that the civilian populace ever decided to revolt given the current political climate. REGARDLESS of what side I was on. This has been discussed behind closed doors amongst friends during a drinking session in the barracks more times than I can count, on more installations than I can count.

And in truth, I would join the rebellion if I felt that it was justified.

Figment · 2012-03-22, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

I as an American soldier would not have in the past, nor in the present, nor in the future, ever fired upon an armed United States citizen in the event that the civilian populace ever decided to revolt given the current political climate. REGARDLESS of what side I was on. This has been discussed behind closed doors amongst friends during a drinking session in the barracks more times than I can count, on more installations than I can count.

And in truth, I would join the rebellion if I felt that it was justified.

But you would fire on unarmed citizens?