My reply to the editor this morning. ============================ Jeffrey C Hearon Founder & CEO SCIO-LTD http://www.scio-ltd.net http://www.scio-ltd.com http://www.scio-ltd.org ============================ ----- Original Message ----- From: Alamaine Ratliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 1:27 AM Subject: [CTRL] Watch Swiss > -Caveat Lector- > > From NewAustralian > > > > Switzerland: Europe's gun centre > > where kids don't kill kids > > > > > > By Gerard Jackson > > No. 124, 21-27 June 1999 > > > > The Littleton killings have once again brought into the spotlight > > America's alleged love affair with guns and its violent nature. Horror > > story after horror story is wheeled out to demonstrate this 'fact'. > > Statistic after statistic is faithfully recited to convince people > > that the horrors would go away if only guns were banned. According to > > this mantra, guns are the real evil, as if they were some kind of > > voodoo curse. Because of this malignant force, according to Cameron > > Forbes, American "teenagers plot to remedy slights by blowing away > > fellow students with Tec-9s" (Guns: why the US can't bite the bullet, > > The Australian 15/6). Ergo, remove the evil and the killings will > > cease. > > > > But is it really so? Are guns the real culprit? What the likes of > > Forbes never tell their readers is that America's crime rate, and in > > particular its murder rate, were much lower when access to guns was > > much easier. But let us go abroad to test the thesis that the root of > > the evil is easy access to guns. If this were so then Switzerland > > should be a war zone. In this country every male between aged 20 to 42 > > is required by law to to keep firearms, including pistols, at home; > > every reserve keeps his assault rifle at home and every soldier take > > his rifle home. Moreover, once a soldier retires he is entitled to > > keep his weapon, whether it be a rifle or a pistol. Not only that, but > > ordinary citizens are even allowed to buy military assault rifles. In > > short, Mr Forbes, virtually every Swiss home is armed - and not with > > peashooters - thus giving the Swiss citizenry more firepower than its > > American counterpart. > > > > It was the Swiss' passion for guns only matched by their determination > > to keep their liberty that helped keep the Nazi war machine at bay. > > When the Swiss government thought a Nazi invasion was imminent it > > ordered every able bodied man to stand by his post and defend it to > > the last round. Their determination to defend their liberties plus > > their shooting skills and the sheer quantity of weapons at their > > disposal combined with the nature of the terrain persuaded the Nazis > > that an invasion of Switzerland was not worth the cost. > > > > While other countries have tennis courts, golf courses, football > > pitches aplenty the Swiss have shooting ranges. And Swiss shooters > > carry their guns in the open as freely as golfers carry their clubs. > > Shooting festivals and contests are a frequent and popular and > > children are encouraged to participate. Once again, what strikes > > visitors about these events is the casual way weapons are carried > > through the streets and on public transport. In restaurants and coffee > > shops tourists sometimes find themselves competing with guns for > > places to hang their coats. Naturally there is an ample supply of gun > > shops to service the country's love affair with shooting. > > > > Yet where is the crime wave? The school shootings? The nightly > > murders? A colleague kindly supplied me with the following facts: In > > 1997 Switzerland recorded only 87 premeditated murders and 102 murder > > attempts. The interesting thing is that only 91 of these offences > > involved a gun, though out of a total of 2,498 robberies and attempted > > robberies 546 involved the use of guns. Of particular interest is that > > nearly 50 per cent of these offences were committed by foreigners. > > Compare Switzerland's murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 with Britain's > > rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Their respective robbery rates are 36 per > > 100,000 and 116 per 100,000 - and bear in mind foreigners committed > > nearly half of Switzerland's robberies. The contrast between the two > > countries is particularly striking when we consider that Britain's gun > > laws are draconian compared with Switzerland's. > > > > None of this is intended to promote gun ownership but only to > > demonstrate as facile, if not fatuous, the view held by the likes of > > Forbes that guns are the real problem in America. People who are > > determined to kill will do so, unfortunately. And if they are resolved > > to use guns as the means to commit murder then they will do that too. > > I cannot help but think that what are now called subcultures in > > America are largely the nihilistic product of more than 30 years of > > successful cultural warfare by liberalism against America's basic > > standards of decency. The kind of standards that so many Australian > > journalists (and American ones too) find so odious. > > > > Visit The Media Wall of Shame > > > > The New Australian > > > > The New Australian > > > > > > Guns and the public good: > > an open letter to Congress > > > > > > No. 123, 14-20 June 1999 > > > > Editor: the following letter is from 287 economists, law-school > > professors and other academics to Congress, regarding gun-control > > legislation. (Not all of the names of the signatories appear here). > > The New Australian thinks it is important to make this kind of > > material available to Australians, not to promote guns but to counter > > the one-sided propaganda that the Australian media parrots on the > > question of guns and crime in America. > > > > We have the likes of Cameron Forbes claiming that American "teenagers > > plot to remedy slights by blowing away fellow students with Tec-9s" > > (The Australian 15/6). The real question here is why this kind of > > behaviour is emerging anyway? Why now, when gun laws are tighter in > > America than ever before? Why America and not Switzerland where every > > male between 20 and 42 is required by law to be armed, and where the > > number of guns per capita exceed America? Could it have anything to do > > with the rise of the destructive ideology of American 'liberalism'? Is > > it accidental that America's social pathologies followed in the wake > > of this ideology? Whether there is a connection or not is something > > that Australian journalists will never investigate. There is always > > the possibility they might discover something they don't like. > > > > After the tragic attacks at public schools over the last two years, > > there is an understandable desire to "do something." Yet, none of the > > proposed legislation would have prevented the recent violence. The > > current debate focuses only on the potential benefits from new gun > > control laws and ignores the fact that these laws can have some very > > real adverse effects. Good intentions don't necessarily make good > > laws. What counts is whether the laws will ultimately lives, prevent > > injury, and reduce crime. Passing laws based upon their supposed > > benefits while ignoring their costs poses real threat to people's > > lives and safety. > > > > These gun control laws will primarily be obeyed by law-abiding > > citizens and risk making it less likely that good people have guns > > compared to criminals. Deterrence is important and disarming good > > people relative to criminals will increase the risk of violent crime. > > If we really care about lives we must focus not only on the newsworthy > > events where bad things happen, but also on the bad things that never > > happen because people are able to defend themselves. > > > > Few people would voluntarily put up a sign in front of their homes > > stating, "This home is a gun-free zone." The reason is very simple. > > Just as we can deter criminals with higher arrest or conviction rates, > > the fact that would-be victims might be able to defend themselves also > > deters attacks. Not only do guns allow individuals to defend > > themselves, they also provide some protection to citizens who choose > > not to own guns since criminals would not normally know who can defend > > themselves before they attack. > > > > The laws currently being considered by Congress ignore the importance > > of deterrence. Police are extremely important at deterring crime, but > > they simply cannot be everywhere. Individuals also benefit from being > > able to defend themselves with a gun when they are confronted by a > > criminal. Let us illustrate some of the problems with the current > > debate. The Clinton administration wants to raise the age at which > > citizens can possess a handgun to 21, and they point to the fact that > > 18- and 19-year-olds commit gun crimes at the highest rate. Yet, > > Department of Justice numbers indicate that 18- and 19-year-olds are > > also the most likely victims of violent crimes including murder, rape, > > robbery with serious injury, and aggravated assault. The vast majority > > of those committing crimes in this age group are members of gangs and > > are already breaking the law by having a gun. This law will primarily > > apply to law-abiding 18-to-21-year-olds and make it difficult for them > > to defend themselves. > > > > Waiting periods can produce a cooling-off period. But they also have > > real costs. Those threatened with harm may not be able to quickly > > obtain a gun for protection. Gun locks may prevent some accidental gun > > deaths, but they will make it difficult for people to defend > > themselves from attackers. We believe that the risks of accidental gun > > deaths, particularly those involving young children, have been greatly > > exaggerated. In 1996, there were 44 accidental gun deaths for children > > under age 10. This exaggeration risks threatening people's safety if > > it incorrectly frightens some people from having a gun in their home > > even though that is actually the safest course of action. > > > > Trade-offs exist with other proposals such as prison sentences for > > adults whose guns are misused by someone under 18 and rules limiting > > the number of guns people can purchase. No evidence has been presented > > to show that the likely benefits of such proposals will exceed their > > potential costs. With the 20,000 gun laws already on the books, we > > advise Congress, before enacting yet more new laws, to investigate > > whether many of the existing laws may have contributed to the problems > > we currently face. The new legislation is ill-advised. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Terry L. Anderson, Montana State University; Charles W. Baird, > > California State University, Hayward; Randy E. Barnett, Boston > > University; Bruce L. Benson, Florida State University; Michael Block, > > University of Arizona; Walter Block, Thomas Borcherding, Claremont > > Graduate School; Frank H. Buckley, George Mason University; Colin D. > > Campbell, Dartmouth College; Robert J. Cottrol, George Washington > > University; Preston K. Covey, Carnegie Mellon University; Mark Crain, > > George Mason University; Tom DiLorenzo, Loyola College in Maryland; > > Paul Evans, Ohio State University; R. Richard Geddes, Fordham > > University; Lino A. Graglia, University of Texas; John Heineke, Santa > > Clara University; David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford > > University; Melvin J. Hinich, University of Texas, Austin; Lester H. > > Hunt, University of Wisconsin - Madison; James Kau, University of > > Georgia; Kenneth N. Klee, UCLA; David Kopel, New Yor University; > > Stanley Liebowitz, University of Texas at Dallas; Luis Locay, > > University of Miami; John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago; > > Geoffrey A. Manne, University of Virginia; John Matsusaka, University > > of Southern California; Fred McChesney, Cornell University; Jeffrey A. > > Miron, Boston University; Carlisle E. Moody, College of William and > > Mary; Craig M. Newmark, North Carolina State University; Jeffrey S. > > Parker, George Mason University; Dan Polsby, Northwestern University; > > Keith T. Poole, Carnegie-Mellon University; Douglas B. Rasmussen, St. > > John's University; Glenn Reynolds, University of Tennessee; John R. > > Rice, Duke University; Russell Roberts, Washington University; Randall > > W. Roth, Univ. of Hawaii; Charles Rowley, George Mason University; > > Allen R. Sanderson, University of Chicago; William F. Shughart II, > > University of Mississippi; Thomas Sowell, Stanford University; Richard > > Stroup, Montana State University; Robert D. Tollison, University of > > Mississippi; Eugene Volokh, UCLA; Michael R. Ward, University of > > Illinois; Benjamin Zycher, UCLA; Todd Zywicki, George Mason > > University. > > > > The New Australian > > > > A<>E<>R > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking > new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled > one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, > German Writer (1759-1805) > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that > prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart > information and ideas through any media and regardless > of frontiers." > Universal Declaration of Human Rights > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will > teach you to keep your mouth shut." > --- Ernest Hemingway > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed > + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material > is distributed without charge or profit to those who have > expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information > for non-profit research and educational purposes only. > > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER > ========== > CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic > screeds are not allowed. Substance-not soapboxing! These are sordid matters > and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright > frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects > spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL > gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; > be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and > nazi's need not apply. > > Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. > ======================================================================== > Archives Available at: > http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html > > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > ======================================================================== > To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Om >
Having visited Switerland on many occasions, I dated a woman from Basle, and one from St Gallen (although not at the same time), I found your article most intriguiing for a number of reasons: Your view on gun control in this country I very much agree with. This country is still the most armed placed on the planet, but not by your measures. Guns in American have a strong psyhco-social context which is not found in any other country, for evidence of this look at Hollywood. But I must strongly disagree with you on your bit of revisionist history. [It was the Swiss' passion for guns only matched by their determination to keep their liberty that helped keep the Nazi war machine at bay. When the Swiss government thought a Nazi invasion was imminent it ordered every able bodied man to stand by his post and defend it to the last round. Their determination to defend their liberties plus their shooting skills and the sheer quantity of weapons at their disposal combined with the nature of the terrain persuaded the Nazis that an invasion of Switzerland was not worth the cost.] The correct story of why the NAZIs didn't evade was twofold, as related to me as I drove through the San Gotthard pass from Interlaken by my girlfriend's father. It had to do with a secret pact the Swiss made with the NAZIs to provide rail passage from Schaffhausen to MIlan to reinforce Mussolini's poorly trained troops. Also, and moreover, as history has recently revealed the Swiss laundred most of the NAZI loot through the NAZI control BIS (Bank of International Settlements) in Basle, Swiss Bank Corp based in Basle also, and Credit Suisse based in Zurich. My girlfriends father pointed to many mountain ranges as we drove through the breathtaking Swiss countryside, indicating that in the event of a NAZI invasion the population intoto would be moved into certain mountain ranges which where equiped with everything to withstand the NAZI incursion for up to seven years. The idea being to hold them off in the mountains where the Swiss where experts in that terrain. You'd do to better research you history. ============================ Jeffrey C Hearon Founder & CEO SCIO-LTD http://www.scio-ltd.net http://www.scio-ltd.com http://www.scio-ltd.org +1.917.553.7217 ============================
