About 15 years ago, I was at a state sponsored meeting in Minot ND. A group the state hired was there telling us about risk factors in the community. The group hired was from the west coast and all the research they cited was studies done in low income urban areas. They pointed out guns were a big risk factor. The head of one of the local social service programs took exception to this. He asked how many people in the room owned a gun. With the exception of myself, everyone raised their hands (my parents owned firearms and I never bought one myself). He then started counting upwards and more then half owned over 3 firearms. He felt the study had no relevance to the area. Examine Switzerland for another example of prevalent firearms.

People inclined to do violence to others will do so regardless of the weapons available. Swimming pools are more dangerous to children than firearms in the house. My take has always been that the weakening of one amendment will allow avenues of attack on the others.

Some further evidence: over the past 30 years, concealed carry laws have loosened dramatically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif), while crime has consistently declined, including year over year in the states at the time they loosen their restrictions.

This year, Washington D.C. had an 17% drop in murder rate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07...), immediately following the overturn of their gun ban via the Heller decision. Which is not to say the decision is responsible for the drop, but even if the impact was negative, it was swamped by other minor factors such as the rain.

I'm more and more convinced that gun restrictions have everything to do with perceived, rather than actual safety.

I read somewhere that total crime rates in Switzerland are comparable to other European countries' rates, but that Switzerland has higher gun crime rates compared to other European countries' rates.

I do believe you are correct (I remember the same thing). People use what they have, but being dead from a knife is still dead. I find the rate of various crimes important as opposed to the tools used. Tools can be substituted.

Tools generally only have partial substitutes. (From memory only...) Suicides decreased in the UK when catalytic converters became required on cars: other means of suicide remain available, but most are harder for the potential suicide than sitting in a car with a pipe from the exhaust through the window.

Knives are substitutes for guns, but it's harder to kill 10 people with a knife than with an automatic. Which may explain why generally (always with exceptions) high gun ownership correlates with high homicides.

What you are saying is that massacres are easier with guns.

Killing one person with a knife is not harder than with a gun. A criminal willing to kill is going to do it with one, or the other, or both.

Just look at the UK. Violence is bad and there is a total ban on handguns and a near total ban on just about everything else (many restrictions and you need a purpose to own the gun - self defense and for "fun" are not reasons - eg. farming, deer huting, formal target shooting )

I believe "high gun ownership correlates with high homicides" to be false. Maybe for a specific demographic or area, but in the middle of the country it just isn't so. I used to work the social work circuit in data collections and research; and the prejudices of the people doing the study show in their interpretation of the raw data and the conclusions they reach.

As we were reminded of today in tragic fashion, suicide bombers seem to get a pretty high body count without using a gun.

"in the middle of the country it just isn't so" ?

That point of view seems rather US-centric. (Apologies if I've misinterpreted what you meant.) My point was in relation to different countries, higher gun ownership correlates with higher death by gun. I was not comparing different geographic areas within the US. It's obviously a complicated question with many influencing factors, but ignoring the availability of guns does seem to fly in the face of the evidence.

Given that the US has high homicide rates, compared to other countries, then if high availability of guns in the US is not a contributing factor, then what would you saw were the relevant factors?

"suicide bombers seem to get a pretty high body count without using a gun" ?

Absolutely. Suicide bombers can probably achieve a higher murder rate than people with guns, much as people with guns can achieve a higher murder rate than people with knives, and people with knives can achieve a higher murder rate than people with clubs.

High availability of suicide bombers in a society is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate than in a society where suicide bombers are not so prevalent. High availability of guns in a society is likely to lead to a higher homicide rate than in a society where guns are not so prevalent.

So, given the discussion is about the availability of guns, I'm not sure of your point here.

Yeah, I'm a little US-centric because I know the local stats better. For the most part, I blame relative economic class and family problems (e.g. abuse). I find blaming an object to mask the real problems in our lives. It's like blaming the engine when you run out of gas.

Switzerland is actually a very bad example to use. The unusally (for Europe) high number of firearms there is because the members of the militia army keep an assault rifle at home. This is rather different from a handgun or a shotgun, and you're not allowed to use them outside military training.

In a lot of ways, I think it is a very good example. They have access and advanced training (assault rifles are actually very hard to use). The fact that the citizens obey the law and don't use their weapons for greater crime is telling.

Correct. Guns are not the problem, culture is the problem. But if you have a bad culture, firearms can make it worse. But the reverse can also be true.

But would you want to use an assault rifle in a mugging?

I can’t see much difference in comparison to a shotgun. I have had training with the older Sig SG 510 and the newer Sig SG 550 assault rifle of the Swiss Army and they’re both about as easy to use as an airgun.

Even if you walk around in public with your assault rifle, nobody becomes suspicious. Active members of the army have to show up for a mandatory shooting program every year and shooting matches are very common too, so “Rambo look-alikes” on the streets aren’t an unusual appearance in Switzerland.

Nevertheless, 40% of all homicides are commited by cut and thrust weapons and “only” 10% by guns. The latter accounts for about 70% in the US.

I think that the "bulwark against totalitarian rule" idea comes in two versions. The naive version imagines that the USA suffers an actual attempt at a military coup, and that the coup is defeated by gunfights started by armed citizens. The sophisticated version asks about ambitious young men: when they dream of gaining political power, what route to the top do they dream of?

If you are an ambitious young man in a country that has had military coups in the recent past, you might join the army, hoping to rise in ranks and be in the right place at the right time. That could also apply in a country with disarmed civilians. It is no part of the American dream. If you want political power in the USA you go to law school (or into banking?)

The 2nd Amendment protects against tyranny because it shapes the Zeitgeist. It makes the idea of staying in office after losing an election seem silly: you would only get shot. Since the very idea is silly the scenario is never played out.

This poses a puzzle to the would be Hari Seldons amongst us. Does the 2nd Amendment inherently undermine itself? Do we end up, after two hundred years of political freedom, thinking that the idea of protection against tyranny being provided by an armed citizenry is just plain silly, because we never see it in action? Where does that lead? Do we repeal the 2nd Amendment, leaving our grandchildren to discover, one hundred years later, that the Zeitgeist has changed and that old Amendment really mattered?