Skip to main content


copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.

The Courts and Congress have come to believe there is reason for fear.  Enemies are everywhere.  Those who wish to do us harm are in our homes.  They talk to us on our telephones.  Some sashay in through our computers.  "Evil doers" are ubiquitous in the United States.  Our open society places the public at risk.  We, the people, must defend ourselves.  Thus, the Supreme Court and Congress have given the government and us the means.  The highest judicial body in the nation has made it possible for the common man to protect himself with a pistol; Legislators provided the President ethereal firearms.  Indeed, individuals and the Commander-In-Chief were bequeathed more than either had asked for.  In 2008, we have entered the Summer of Separation.  In the United States we say, "Farewell to privacy.  Hello to arms."

Absorbed in fear, Americans have detached themselves from the original intent of the United States Constitution.  We the people have embraced weaponry and rejected our right to privacy.  The populace, with assistance from Congress willingly chose to forfeit the Fourth Amendment.  authentic freedoms were  disemboweled.  If the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act  (FISA) stands, and there is no reason to think a Bill signed into law by the President of the United States and each House of Congress would not be fully implemented, the press and the people will no longer have unfettered access to information.  Nor can they disseminate data without intense scrutiny.  Chris Hedges, a twenty year veteran Foreign Correspondent for The New York Times, speaks to a truth that he lived and now fears will die.

The new FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance.  It allows the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants.  The court will not be told specifics about who will be wiretapped, which means the law provides woefully inadequate safeguards to protect innocent people whose communications are caught up in the government's dragnet surveillance program.

The law, passed under the guise of national security, ostensibly targets people outside the country.  There is no question, however, that it will ensnare many communications between Americans and those overseas.  Those communications can be stored indefinitely and disseminated, not just to the U.S. government but to other governments.

This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East.  It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists, and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours.  It will hang like the sword of Damocles over all who dare to defy the official versions of events.  It leaves open the possibility of retribution and invites the potential for abuse by those whose concern is not with national security but with the consolidation of their own power.

Trepidation has long been a tool for intimidation.  A frightened fellow or female will happily adopt a policy or a pistol to relieve apprehension.  Perhaps, that it why after the events of September 11, 2001, Americans, panicked and the power elite prospered.  As the Twin Towers fell, the people cried out for protection.  Congress gleefully approved the Patriot Act; and as a nation, we pursued a course of action that was and is contrary to Constitutional principles.  Even early on, Americans said,  "Farewell to privacy.  Hello to arms."

As the war thundered on, the public worked to avoid greater anxiety.  People purchased more guns for personal safety sake.  They feared the government might not be able to shield them from all potential harms.  Indeed, this attitude has been ubiquitous in American history.  The Wild West outlook often overrides logic or Constitutional law.  In America, there have been many Summers of Separation.

When humans think weaponry is the solution, as they do in a country where there are ninety guns per every one hundred U.S. residents, they will grab a pistol when faced with any problem.  The availability of petroleum has become a paradox.  Prices for fuel and food are high.  The cost for shelter is higher.  Homes are in foreclosure.  Job security is but a myth.  Employer provided benefits are elusive.  The cost for Health Care coverage is out of reach; yet, the gun that could end it all is close.

Immigration is also an issue that irks many in America.  When migrants flee to the States in search of financial freedom, the native-born feel further threatened.  The divide between the races causes much resentment.  Income inequity offers reason for rage.  Economic slavery causes tempers to rise.  In 2008, the effect of all these predicaments troubles the populace.   The American public is aggravated.  Currently, people feel less safe, less strong, and more scared.  Millions ponder.  Force can seem the great equalizer.  Hence, gun ownership is great.  The Small Arms Survey, released in August 2007 reveals Americans have a ready arsenal.

With fewer than five per cent of the world’s population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world’s civilian-owned guns.

The report went on to state that the common folk are better equipped with weaponry than law enforcement or the military might be.  Civilians who reside in cities, suburbs, and those who dwell in the countryside possess the vast majority of total firearms owned in the United States.  Citizens in a country built on might will use firepower to retain what they believe is their right. If they are refused the privilege to pack heat, Americans will seek recourse by any means.

Special-forces policeman Heller, a resident of Washington District of Columbia certainly did.  The lawman, aware that anyone on the street might be armed sought solace in a piece of hardware.  Mister Heller applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home; the District denied his request since, at the time, the District of Columbia forbade civilian handgun ownership.  Disgruntled, and prepared for battle, as Americans often are, Officer Heller filed a legal suit.  He stated his Second Amendment Rights were violated.  The Supreme Court agreed.

A review of the actual Second Amendment which states Americans have the Right to "bear arms in times when a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State," or research might have led the Justices to decide otherwise.  Nonetheless, in a summer steeped with separation from acumen, the Supreme Court ruled civilian gun ownership is a right.

The Administration, policymakers, and pundits think the decision wise.  After all, it is a dangerous world.  Americans need to be prepared to fight the ominous foe  Fifteen years ago,   near half of American households understood this.  People built arsenals.  Thirty-one percent of adult Americans owned a firearm in 1993.  Still, that armory was not enough to protect the citizenry from attack.  Years later, the munitions stored,  while likely larger, were no better protection.

Crimes occurred outside the home, on the streets of any given community and , just as predicted, some transgressions traumatized those within four walls. Few Americans ponder the weightier aspects of artillery in the American home.

Earlier this year (1997), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a mind-boggling report showing that the U.S. firearm-related homicide rate for children was 16 times higher than the combined rate for children in 25 other industrialized countries.  Meanwhile, the U.S. child rate of firearm related suicide was 11 times higher. . .

Last year, Congress nearly slashed the budget for the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), which collects and monitors firearm injury data and funds related research as part of its mission.  As a result of new funding mandates, CDC this year has been forced to dramatically reduce its firearm-related injury research, and CDC-funded gunshot injury surveillance programs will come to an end in several states.

All this comes at a time when gunshot injuries are expected to soon outstrip automobile accidents as the number one cause of injury death in the U.S., costing an estimated $20 billion yearly in medical costs and lost productivity.  Surprisingly little medical research monitors the kinds of firearm injuries that occur or the types of guns used.  While the CDC samples unshot injury data from 91 hospitals around the country, there is no comprehensive national surveillance system to accurately track how many people are wounded by guns each year..

Surveillance is the sham used to explain what Federal officials think a greater priority.  Those who have more power than a weapon might wield understand the statistics on civilian gun wounds would not please or appease Americans.  Information on gun injury might shift the fear factor.  If the people are to remain focused on foreign forces, then FISA, the Bill that keeps on giving to the politically powerful, will remain safe, and after all, is that not the truer issue.  As foreign correspondent Christopher Hedges reminds us . . .

It (the law) is about using terrorism (at home or abroad) as a pretext to permit wholesale spying and to silence voices that will allow us to maintain an open society.

Thankfully, when prized pistols are in question, it is easy to silence voices of dissent.  Physicians were not asked to speak before the Supreme Court shot down a ban on gun sales.  Had they had the opportunity Americans and the Justices might have heard  . . .

Doctors worried by Supreme Court gun ruling
By Maggie Fox
Wed Jul 9, 2008 7:44pm EDT

Washington (Reuters) - Last month's Supreme Court ruling striking down a strict gun control law in the U.S. capital will lead to more deaths and accidental injuries, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine said on Wednesday.

They joined a growing clamor from medical doctors, especially emergency room physicians, who fear a surge of accidental deaths, murders, and suicides if handguns become more easily available than they already are.

The ruling struck down a law in Washington that forbade personal ownership of handguns.  The court made explicit, for the first time, that Americans had rights as individuals to own guns.

It won praise from President George W. Bush, Republican presidential candidate John McCain and guns rights advocates (and the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama)

Justice Antonin Scalia, who voted with the 5-4 majority on the decision, said citizens may prefer handguns for home defense because they "can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."

Perchance, Justice Scalia would be comforted to know, that with thanks to his cohorts  in the Legislative Branch, when a city dweller or a rural resident telephones for assistance, he or she can be comforted by the thought the authorities are very close by.  Indeed, public officials may be plugged into the individual's phone, and computer.  In the Summer of Separation, as powerbrokers in one part of Washington said , "Hello To Arms," those on the other side of the Hill proclaimed, "Farewell To Privacy."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act established thirty years ago was all but rescinded.  The court system created to help public officials in a crisis is no longer needed to swiftly serve warrants when an investigation is requested.  The Constitution has been compromised.

Lawmakers are already justifying their votes for making major changes to that proven regime by saying that the bill is a reasonable compromise that updates FISA technologically and will make it somewhat harder to spy on Americans abroad. But none of that mitigates the bill’s much larger damage. It would make it much easier to spy on Americans at home, reduce the courts’ powers, and grant immunity to the companies that turned over Americans’ private communications without a warrant.

It would allow the government to bypass the FISA court and collect large amounts of Americans’ communications without a warrant simply by declaring that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It cuts the vital “foreign power” provision from FISA, never mentions counterterrorism and defines national security so broadly that experts think the term could mean almost anything a president wants it to mean.

The President is abundantly pleased.  The present Commander-In-Chief is now assured ultimate power.  Future potential Chief Executives, one of whom voted to support this conciliatory commitment to telecommunication companies, will forever retain the "right" to be spy on the citizenry.   In the Summer of Separation, cognitive and Constitutional dissonance is secure.  Congress and the courts assured us of this.

Congress cast aside the Fourth Amendment,  The Supreme Court rescinded the essence of the Second Amendment.  Our countrymen are now be free to carry a gun, and chat on an open line with the trigger cocked.  Former President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt  told us “Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself."  Perhaps, the prominent predecessor could not have predicted a day when citizens would be convinced to embrace fretfulness, to forego freedom, and to sing, "Farewell to privacy.  Hello to Arms."

References and Rights . . .

Originally posted to Bcgntn; BeThink on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:27 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Are Americans afraid enough? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, kbman, ActivistGuy, CIndyCasella

    . . .  to forfeit the Constitution?  Apparently so.

    It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Betsy L. Angert

    by Bcgntn on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:28:31 AM PDT

    •  It is hard to say... (0+ / 0-)

      Are Americans afraid enough? they do not have a representative government to speak for them...any more. What goes on in Congress is hardly the will of the people...any more. Allotting "free speech"(it should be called monopolized speech) based on wealth has all but destroyed representative government in America.

      I don’t think Bush Inc. has thought out the ramifications of invading the American peoples privacy, sending their jobs and workplaces abroad, misusing their military, piling unsustainable national debt on their heads and while conjointly and idiotically advocating for and assisting the public to become better armed. As usual these miscreants demonstrate their colossal ability screw up everything they touch for themselves and everybody else. If there is a Satan you just know he has got to be chuckling at the misadventures of his imps on earth in creating a hell for themselves and others.

      The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

      by Bobjack23 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:51:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rod Serling has it nailed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, Bcgntn, justCal

    In this.

    There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. - Sun Tzu

    by OHeyeO on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:39:25 AM PDT

  •  Although successful to date... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, Bcgntn, OHeyeO

    ..I'm of the mind that the public has become wary of this strategy.  However, fear of lack of oil is the new threat, and they are playing their full hand right now.

    To be honest, they only chance McCain has right now is war with Iran, and unfortunately his biggest sponsor (Bush) can call that shot whenever he wants.

    by axel000 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:40:21 AM PDT

    •  That's the game (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, Bcgntn

      Just keep a steady stream of fear via different routes and boogeymen. It worked for the Cold War.

      There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. - Sun Tzu

      by OHeyeO on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 08:48:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "democracy can't be imported." (0+ / 0-)

      Dear axel000 . . .

      The plan is in place.  The stage is set.  Many Persians feel certain Bush will bomb Iran.  Sadly, most also trust that none of this would be if the United States had not been involved.  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is less powerful and popular than George W. Bush.  Indeed, Bush and America has helped to create the current crisis.  I offer . . .
      US Policy; Attack Adversaries. Appease Americans. No Diplomacy

      Last year, the administration requested and received $75 million from Congress to "bring" democracy to Iran.

      Some of the $75 million has been devoted to the U.S.-funded Radio Farda, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, as well as to VOA satellite TV, which are beaming Persian programs into Iran. Other portions have been given secretly to exiled Iranian groups, political figures and nongovernmental organizations to establish contacts with Iranian opposition groups.

      But Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone. The fact is, no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept such funds.

      According to the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis, noninterference in Iran's domestic affairs is one of Washington's legal obligations.

      The secret dimension of the distribution of the $75 million has also created immense problems for Iranian reformists, democratic groups and human rights activists. Aware of their own deep unpopularity, the hard-liners in Iran are terrified by the prospects of a "velvet revolution" and have become obsessed with preventing contacts between Iranian scholars, artists, journalists and political activists and their American counterparts.

      It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Betsy L. Angert

      by Bcgntn on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:16:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dogmatic Left. (0+ / 0-)

    Fear that "Big Brother" may be watching.
    Fear that "Big Brother" won't be taking away guns.

    You would think the people with a paranoid fear of the government spying on them, would be the same people defending the right to bear arms.  Isn't the right to privacy what is cited when the NRA is trying to oppose background checks?

    I guess I just don't have enough fear.  I have always assumed even before 9/11, that anything I did would be monitored, but I am less annoyed with the idea that the government would listen in on my communications then with some of the crap that shows up on my credit report  (and I have relatives in the middle east that have been jailed for "supporting terrorism" by the  Israeli government, so this is alot more likely to affect me then the majority of people here complaining about it).   And I have always assumed that I would be more likely to die in a car accident than to a firearm.

    We have our own desire to convince Americans to be afraid of things, they are just different things then what the Right wants us to be afraid of.

    We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. -Barack Obama, 2004 DNC

    by Tumult on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:09:23 AM PDT

    •  for whom the bell tolls (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Dear Tumult . . .

      We have our own desire to convince Americans to be afraid of things, they are just different things then what the Right wants us to be afraid of.

      While the statement may be true in abstract, concretely I fear a lack of essential freedoms that define democracy.  If that means I am dogmatic, so be it.  I am reminded of the arguments anarchist offer, and muse of how John Donne speaks for me.

      No man is an island, entire of itself
      every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
      if a clod be washed away by the sea,
      Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
      as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
      any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
      and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
      it tolls for thee.

      ~ John Donne

      Do I wish to fear the loss of rights that help to create a greater and common good, or would I rather be told what to think and what I may say safely.
      Tumult, I am a Liberal.  
      The Center For American Progress Asks, Are You A Progressive?
      "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."
      ~ Will Rogers

      It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Betsy L. Angert

      by Bcgntn on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:32:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Based on your defenition FISA is liberal. (0+ / 0-)

        Arn't they claiming the goal is to protect the common good?

        The argument can be made that civilian gun ownership protects the common good as well.

        And how does any of this touch on you being told what to think and what you may safely say?

        Based on the political compass I am left/libertarian.  Economic Left/Right: -5.88
        Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.21.

        We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. -Barack Obama, 2004 DNC

        by Tumult on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:14:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •   Silent Night, love thy brother (0+ / 0-)

          Dear Tumult . . .

          I took the Political Compass test so long ago.  Interesting and perhaps, for me it was more accurate than I allowed myself to know prior.  I am indeed an authentic Liberal and not an anarchist, or one who hold dear a need to be "Right."  I have no desire to protect myself from my brethren.  You may wish to consider the Christmas Truce, Silent Night.

          The Year was 1914 and the Great War was under way. Christmas season was upon the participants of war, and the scene was set for one of the greatest Christmas stories of all time. For two days, the fighting stopped, the guns fell silent, and men who had been enemies days before, came together in the spirit of brotherhood, peace, and goodwill. The soldiers came together to bury their dead, sing hymns, hold worship services, exchange gifts and play soccer. It was the spirit of Christ, the Prince of Peace that moved these soldiers to act in complete opposite of how soldiers should act. They looked beyond the propaganda, and saw in each other humanity and likeness.

          I share the common good does not mean I can kill my friend, family, or neighbor for I fear they may do me harm.  The common good does not accept a world in which my child could accidentally be shot by a gun in my possession.  The common good does not reinforce the possibility that someone could steal and murder my offspring.  The common good does not allow me to shoot at a driver who obstructs my path.

          United States:
          0.042802 per 1,000 people

          United Kingdom:
          0.0140633 per 1,000 people

          0.00921351 per 1,000 people

          This means United States Murder rate is 66.7% or 2/3  higher than England's
          And a whopping 93.6% higher than Switzerland's

          Murder statistics overall

          Murders committed by firearms

          United States  #4
          England [United Kingdom] #40
          Switzerland #23

          By the way, numbers 1, 2 and 3 are places were guns are ubiquitous
          South Africa, Columbia and Thailand. In Columbia and Thailand there are also active civil wars going on.

          United States Crime Statistics extract

          England Crime Statistics extract

          The rate per thousand of population murder by firearms comparison between the United States and England is 96.4 %. In other words, we have a rate that is 28 times higher than their rate per thousand of population.  

          You may recall the government no longer keeps accurate statistics for gun injury.  Nonetheless . .

          "In civilian firearm injuries and deaths, we're doing worse than any other country," says Dr. Robert Tanz, with the Violent Injury Prevention Center at Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. "We're not having a civil war here, but 35,000 to 40,000 people a year die from gunshot wounds." Dr. Tanz would like to see a firearm injury surveillance system in Illinois, but so far those efforts have failed. "The efforts of CDC are important because they apply the science of epidemiology and the principles of public health to injuries from firearms. It's intellectually disturbing to me that people don't want to understand this issue at a basic level," he says.

          It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Betsy L. Angert

          by Bcgntn on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:06:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You ruined your own argument. (0+ / 0-)

            I seem to recall that a higher percentage of the population in Switzerland owns guns than in the US.

            Some of our clients settling in Switzerland ask us about their rights with respect to firearms. Can you import weapons to Switzerland? In what circumstances can they be transported? Where can they be fired? Are there limitations with respect to the type of weapon? We’ll try to answer these questions in this section.
            We’d like to stress that in our mind, there is absolutely no credible reason for an average citizen to want to transport a loaded weapon, given the fact that violent crime is practically non-existent in Switzerland. Firearm ownership is widespread in Switzerland, however, and precision shooting is a highly regarded pastime. Young people can practice shooting military weapons by the age of 16, and keep their rifles at home. More information

            It is worth noting that the high number of firearms per capita does not lead to a high rate of violent crime – on the contrary.

            Regadless what you said here is overboard, and dogmatic:

            I share the common good does not mean I can kill my friend, family, or neighbor for I fear they may do me harm.  The common good does not accept a world in which my child could accidentally be shot by a gun in my possession.  The common good does not reinforce the possibility that someone could steal and murder my offspring.  The common good does not allow me to shoot at a driver who obstructs my path.

            Murder, Abduction and Theft are all possible without a gun.  In some ways they are easier in a society without guns.  And I do not see that allowing gun possession, means you would have to possess a gun, since you seem to think you are a danger to others.  If you compare gun deaths in rural America (where a higher percentage of the population owns guns), with that of urban America,  and only considered gun ownership per person/murder, you would reach the opposite conclusion (that more people with guns leads to less murder).

            We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America. -Barack Obama, 2004 DNC

            by Tumult on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:18:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "dogmatic"? the Swiss, less and still (0+ / 0-)

              Dear Tumult . . .

              Please peruse.

              Guns at Home in Switzerland Means Gun Violence Is There, Too

              Every once in a while, a gun guy will email us about Switzerland. Why do they do this, you ask? Because, supposedly, in Switzerland, every male able to commit to military service is required to keep a machine gun and ammunition in his home. Now, while it seems pretty clear that guns represent a threat, a lot of the gun guys who email us don't think so. They say Switzerland's relative peace and quiet isn't in spite of the fact that there are guns everywhere-- they claim it's because of it. They try to tell us that because every male in Switzerland is armed without a license (a fact that, incidentally, will change in 2008 when Switzerland comes into line with the Schengen treaty), gun violence is nonexistent in Switzerland.

              Like most of what the gun guys say, that's just not true.

              The murder last week of one of Switzerland's most famous skiers has forced the Swiss to look long and hard at a crime that is worryingly common in their society.

              Corinne Rey-Bellet was shot by her husband Gerold Stadler just days after the couple had agreed to separate.

              Stadler also shot and killed Rey-Bellet's brother Alain, and seriously wounded her mother, before finally killing himself.

              The Swiss media tend to call cases like this "family dramas", in which a man kills his wife, often his own children, and himself.

              Family slaughter might be a more accurate term - there have been 14 such cases in Switzerland in the last 11 months.

              Now certainly 14 cases of family slaughter is nothing compared to what we have in America-- we go through that, unfortunately, in a matter of hours within a day. And the Swiss and American cultures are (almost completely) a world apart. But the fact is, gun guys, that when you have guns around, you're going to have gun violence. It's telling that just as most of the Swiss keep their weapons in their homes (concealed carry is legal but heavily regulated), that's where the gun violence happens.

              A recent study indicated that 58% of all murders in Switzerland were within the family. In the Netherlands, also a peaceful, prosperous Western European country, the figure is 29%.

              Mr Boess blames the Swiss army's policy of requiring Swiss men, who all have to do military service, to keep their guns and ammunition at home in case of an emergency call-up.

              What that means is that nearly all Swiss men have a sturmgewehr - a sub-machine gun - stored somewhere in their homes.

              Those who make it to officer level have an automatic pistol too, and when men leave the army, they are allowed to keep their guns. No licence is required.

              "If things go wrong, he can go upstairs, get the gun, and shoot," says Mr Boess.

              In most of Switzerland's "family dramas", an army gun is used. Stadler shot his famous wife with his officer's pistol.

              "It's very common to hear women tell how their husbands remind them they have a gun in moments of tension," says Brigitte Schnegg, professor of gender politics at Berne University.

              "They'll say: 'If you don't do what I want, don't forget I've got my gun upstairs.'"

              It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Betsy L. Angert

              by Bcgntn on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 07:04:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  What does the NRA do that the ACLU doesn't? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The NRA has a huge building in northern Virginia.

    They must have a lot of money.

    Good research.  I hope you resubmit it around 5 pm tomorrow, so that it gets more readers.

    •  ? and sincere thanks (0+ / 0-)

      Dearest CIndyCasella  . . .

      I thank you.  Your kindness means much to me.

      I do not feel it is right to re-post.  Is it even allowed?  What occurs tomorrow at 5?

      I can only hope people peruse.  I never seem to know what time might be best.  As life occurs, novel news enters and  . . .

      It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Betsy L. Angert

      by Bcgntn on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:09:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site