Dr_B
member
Dr. Janet Rosenbaum (http://janetrosenbaum.org/) recently published an article in the Journal of Public Health Policy titled "Gun utopias? Firearm access and ownership in Israel and Switzerland." In the article, of which I have a PDF copy, she attacks the "claims" that those two countries serve as examples of nations with permissive firearms laws, but low crime rates. She concludes that gun ownership is actually rare in each country and laws governing possession and licensing of firearms are restrictive, contrary to what those in the USA who support gun ownership believe. Interestingly, she also notes in her conclusion that extensive gun control in each country does not prevent guns from being associated with violent deaths.
In my professional opinion as a social scientist, the article is a careful blend of statistics drawn from gun ownership rates and laws for both military and private purposes in each country. Military gun use and possession, either during service or off duty, does not belong in the same data set as frequencies of civilian gun ownership and use. I suspect in most countries the military functions like the US military does, in the sense that the military and not the individual decides when you have a gun and where you can take it. That is my view on that particular issue. Your opinion may differ.
I pose two questions:
1. Why does it matter what the gun laws are in Israel and Switzerland? If they are permissive, OK. If not, so what? I see it as a somewhat irrelevant issue. They are not America. They are different countries with different laws and different cultures.
2. She concludes, as I stated above, that extensive gun control does not prevent guns from being associated with violent deaths. Again, I am not sure that is an incredibly important statement. It seems to me that whenever a firearm is used in self-defense or in the course of a crime (e.g., a murder) it is always associated with a violent death. In other words, the firearm was there when it was used to end someone's life. Is that interesting or meaningful? It is a bit like saying car ownership is associated with speeding.
I am interested in comments regarding this article. I might be able to provide a copy or portions of it via email to those who are interested.
In my professional opinion as a social scientist, the article is a careful blend of statistics drawn from gun ownership rates and laws for both military and private purposes in each country. Military gun use and possession, either during service or off duty, does not belong in the same data set as frequencies of civilian gun ownership and use. I suspect in most countries the military functions like the US military does, in the sense that the military and not the individual decides when you have a gun and where you can take it. That is my view on that particular issue. Your opinion may differ.
I pose two questions:
1. Why does it matter what the gun laws are in Israel and Switzerland? If they are permissive, OK. If not, so what? I see it as a somewhat irrelevant issue. They are not America. They are different countries with different laws and different cultures.
2. She concludes, as I stated above, that extensive gun control does not prevent guns from being associated with violent deaths. Again, I am not sure that is an incredibly important statement. It seems to me that whenever a firearm is used in self-defense or in the course of a crime (e.g., a murder) it is always associated with a violent death. In other words, the firearm was there when it was used to end someone's life. Is that interesting or meaningful? It is a bit like saying car ownership is associated with speeding.
I am interested in comments regarding this article. I might be able to provide a copy or portions of it via email to those who are interested.