Slashdot Mirror
Switzerland Passes Violent Games Ban
BanjoTed writes with a followup to news from February that the Swiss government was pursuing a ban on violent video games. He writes
"Sadly, Switzerland has now passed the law that paves the way for an outright ban on violent video games in the country. The full implications of the ruling will not be known until the government reveals the exact requirements that will be laid down by the new legislation – a decision that has not yet been made. What is certain though is that the Swiss authorities have now obtained the power to introduce any measures they see fit. The likeliest outcome seems to be an outright ban on the production, distribution and sale of any games deemed to be unsuitable – most likely anything with either a PEGI 16+ or PEGI 18+ certificate."
gaming on Futurama's Neutral Planet would be.
"Banned for not being Neutral enough."
"I hate these filthy neutrals, Kif! With enemies, you know where they stand, but with neutrals - who knows. It sickens me."
Possession with intent to distribute?
Boy, it sure is a good thing they wrapped up all the violence into small packages with nifty little stickers on them! Whew, for a minute there, I was worried that I might actually see a "policeman" in that country, or find vulgar language on Youtube the next time I'm visiting there. Goodness me...
Good to know there's a country out there that can effectively protect its citizens from the real world.
You are aware that Switzerland is *more* capitalistic than the rest of Western Europe right? Due to the lack of a common ethnic or linguistic background, they adopted a form of government quite similar to that of the U.S.; federalist in nature, with significant autonomy for the cantons. Their health care is provided by private organizations, and while the base level health care is required to be offered on a non-profit basis, anything above the base level is offered on a for-profit basis similar to our own. It's one of the few countries to allow assisted suicide, which is a personal freedom even the U.S. denies. Troll all you want, but Switzerland is not the country to use as an object lesson.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Perhaps the Swiss could teach Slashdot programmers (if there are any) how to delete all posts with the "n" word in it.
>>implying that anyone thinks everything in Europe is perfect
Just because somebody thinks some part of how a nation or culture operates is good, even better than how their own does it, doesn't mean they blanket agree with everything.
It's kind of like how Tea Partiers will claim to hate Bush, then praise every single thing he did and said... only in reverse.
Good effort, though.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Is it just me or is the entire world going into a period of reduced freedom and increased state control? Every developed nation appears to be banning violent games, porn and free speech in general and they're doing it for no logical reasons. Modern Warfare 2 sold 6.4million copies in the first week in the US and UK alone and yet there weren't 6.4million new mass murders on the streets. This is more than sufficient evidence to prove that violent games don't turn people into killers and yet are moronic, moralist rulers still press on with their attacks on our freedom.
The one thing that will turn me into a killer is if this continues because I'm growing to hate society more and more by the day. It's been shown many times throughout history that people will only take so much before heads start to roll.
Take the piss all you like, the fact is they have the highest gun ownership in Europe and the lowest gun crime.
Back on topic, follow the sponsors of this law, chances are they have an axe to grind and the Swiss voters will soon cost these people their jobs.
We have assisted suicide laws in Oregon and Washington.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Isn't Switzerland in Europe? Whats to stop swiss gamers from driving to Germany, Italy or whatever and buying their games there?
Those laws exist in a legal limbo (similar to the medical marijuana laws); they basically exist at the sufferance of the Department of Justice, and to my knowledge have not been well tested in court at the federal level.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
If video games cause real world behavior, based on sales of the EA NHL 94-99 series games, the NHL should be vastly more popular than it is today. There should be an entire generation of hardcore American hockey fans who grew up playing the EA games.
But, there isn't. No one played NHL 99 and suddenly decided to demand their community center add a hockey rink.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
don't worry, there was no law passed. what passed was a mandate to the gov to create a law. that law needs to be voted on if it comes (and nobody knows what form it will have anyway).
even in the unlikely event that that law then will be passed by the parlament, we just need 50k signatures to get a public vote on it (in a world with facebook, that will be very easy).
So no panic, this just just the healthy way a democracy works, everybody has his ideas, and in the end we can vote on them.
Take the piss all you like, the fact is they have the highest gun ownership in Europe and the lowest gun crime.
Back on topic, follow the sponsors of this law, chances are they have an axe to grind and the Swiss voters will soon cost these people their jobs.
Let's hope so. I'm from the U.S. and there's plenty of this nonsense happening here: I mean, you'd almost think that our lawmakers have all our problems under complete control and have nothing more important to do with their time (and our money.)
... what do these people (indeed, anyone who wants to "ban" something) want to see happen to society, and what is the probability of that actually occurring? And is that outcome worth the price (the law of unintended consequences is always a factor.) A good law is one that has a beneficial outcome with minimal costs to society and that doesn't violate any core laws or principles of that society. It's hard to see what a ban on violent gaming will actually do, noisy rhetoric and flawed "research" aside. As you say, the country already has more guns per capita than just about anyone else (excepting perhaps the U.S., but I don't know the numbers) and comparatively little violent crime. Personally, I just don't see the point.
What it comes to down to is expectations vs. reality
I have played all sorts of games where targeting and destroying objects is what the game is all about. This started with military flight simulations and went on to tanks, mechs and space ships. Then there was the first-person shooter... started out shooting Nazis then monsters and other people... at least the shapes were people.
Also, there have been "boxing" and wrestling games for a very long time -- widely accepted sports that are also quite violent. In fact, American football is quite violent.
I know this is targeting the grand theft auto games, but there are LOTS of games where there is killing and dying. Few with rape and beating activities, but still. As far as I am concerned, MOST games are violent or could be considered such. Where should the line be drawn? The line certainly can't be straight as there are simply too many exceptions in government.
Cops are allowed to be violent. Soldiers are allowed to be violent. The news is permitted to display violence. Art is allowed to depict violent scenes... many of which are considered to be masterpieces.
And while we are telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes, let's outlaw "violent" sex play... no more bondage and certainly no role plays or sexual fantasies that might be considered violent.
The term "slippery slope" is an understatement when it comes to this topic.
Forget legislating against entertainment. Let's legislate good parenting and see how many career-minded professionals and politicians get caught up in that net.
but at least it's a clearly stated policy with a clearly stated agenda. I disagree with this kind of censorship but it's better than the "refused classification" ban in Australia which seems to be open to more liberal interpretation than this law (although we'll have to see how it's effected).
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Seriously? Make something illegal without defining what?
Obviously pretty much any RTS is out of the question. War games as well. First Person Shooters. But what about other types of games?
Is it one where violence is the primary incentive or primary way to complete a game?
If so, where does that place a game like Thief: The Dark Project, where violence runs counter to the spirit of the game?
Is it one where any kind of violence can take place?
If so, will that not eliminate any kind of racing game, where crashes are quite violent?
Is it one where you, as a player, can inflict damage to a humanoid character?
If so, what will that do to games like The Sims, where you can trap a character inside a house, letting them starve to death or set fire to the house?
What about sandbox games like Second Life, that doesn't have a specific purpose? I realise that quite a lot of people hate Second Life, but here it's a good example of a non-violent violent game. If you want it to be violent, it can be. If you don't want it to be, it won't be.
Is Mario a violent game? After all you need to kill off a lot of enemies to complete the game, or at the very least you have to avoid them killing you. Zelda? Sonic?
What about pure text based games, like Zork? Magic: The Gathering and other similar card-games that have expanded onto the computer?
Does chess count as a violent game? What about Battle Chess?
Sarcasm noted, however...
Having lived 2 years in Switzerland, their security is assured very proactively. Every male 18 to 40ish is required to serve in their military. It's not unusual to see tanks rolling down the street midday, on the way to training. Soldiers are often seen on the trains in full uniform, with weapon, off to their weekend on-duty. At a colleague's home, his service rifle was propped up in the corner next to his Swatch collection. Police with automatic weapons are obvious on their patrols at the airport in Zurich.
The Swiss may be conservative, but afraid of violence, they are not.
In contrast to the freedom to commit assisted suicide, the country is not, in general, very socially permissive. It's a very right-wing country both economically and socially. Take, for instance, the ban on minarets in Switzerland. That degree of censorship (and xenophobia) is much more restrictive than most other western countries.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Too much government. It's sad to think that for something constructed to to keep the citizens safe would also find itself suitable to take it upon the right to deem what is acceptable for others.
Some games are obviously violent (GTA, Call of Duty, Quake). But what about cartoon violence, like Pokemon or even old
school Pacman? Maybe the measure addresses this
problem, but I have a hard time trusting politicians to come up with a meaningful definition that would apply to things that might need it but not to those that don't.
Of course all of this ignores the issue of one group of people deciding what larger group of can enjoy as entertainment when said entertainment isn't hurting anyone. Any state willing to do that can't call itself "free" without twisting the definition of freedom beyond anything meaningful.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Did someone pass a law banning correlation between Slashdot headlines and the actual stories?
Title: game banned
Story: new law paves the way for a ban, but it's still unclear.
It use to be once in a while, but now...
What's next?
Title: Civilization destroyed in improbable cataclysmic event!
Story: 2012 released on DVD and Blu-Ray
Take the piss all you like, the fact is they have the highest gun ownership in Europe and the lowest gun crime.
They also have compulsory gun ownership for all military age males, so that particular statistic is pretty biased.
The idea of a total ban has more holes than a lump of Swiss cheese.
I thought this could only happen in Venezuela, because Chavez was an evil dictator..
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/04/2136257/Venezuela-Bans-Hostile-Videogames-and-Toys?from=rss
I'm confused now..
No. Just not true. Not entirely anyway. Yes, they do all have guns -- however domestic violence quite often ends up as fatal gunshot wounds. It may be true that they don't have much in the way of armed robbery compared to other European countries, but they sure do love to shoot their own families.
Not that this has anything to do with games.
When I go to Switzerland, I expect it to look like Switzerland, with windmills and all that. If I wanted to look at Tehran, I'd go to Tehran.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
How come Switzerland suddenly has an opinion about everything? First the minarets, now violent games...did Zapp Braningan sent spies to stir up the place or what?
What more can one expect from a country who's main claims to fame are dodgy bank accounts and the sodding cuckoo clock.
All of them love to shoot their families?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Why does that make it biased?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Don't forget, they will bundle the game with its very own secret bank account! SWEET! Less violence, more embezzling, everyone WINS!
Three things will happen here. First, because Switzerland is a relatively small, landlocked country, many Swiss gamers will simply take the relatively short drive to a neighboring country to purchase the games they want. Second, many games are available for purchase online, so the drive will in many cases be unnecessary. And third, anyone who was still waiting for an excuse to pirate games in Switzerland now has it, and quite frankly, more power to them.
The only way this could be more of an empty gesture is if the Swiss legislature banned wicked thoughts. Good luck with that.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Switzerland bans everything.... Not to forget Minarets http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-3-2009/oliver-s-travels---switzerland
So long free world!
Grand Theft Auto - Zurich
Take control of young tough Friedrich Heinz Lykakok as he battles his way up the hierarchy of the illicit precision watch market, and eventually targets the trillions of secret dollars and Euros squirreled away in secret Swiss bank accounts. In between missions, tool around the streets and find a lovely little Swiss miss with whom to pass the time.
Pre-order now and get an unlock code for the Sig 550 rifle that shoots fine chocolate bullets. Carnage in the streets never tasted so sweet!
Switzerland may not be the country to use as an object lesson, but that doesn't mean that we can't be sick of them.
All that evidence could also lead to the conclusion that they're not just afraid of it, but paranoid about it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Which is why I'm somewhat disappointed. I've always thought the Swiss above all else as rational and logical.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
There must be a good reason for this since it was done in a socialist paradise.
On what possible measure could anyone, in their right mind or with a nanosecond's consideration of the facts, think that SWITZERLAND - of all places! - is a "socialist paradise"??
They've been the most capitalistic country on earth since about 1720! Most Swiss I've met are like Ayn Rand! Do they even have any government-run social institutions? They're not even a member of the EU!
That's got to be the funniest post on /. I've seen all week.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
The minarets were not banned out of a desire to make the country homogeneous for naive tourists.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Uh, no.
There's another way of looking at things, called the US 10th Amendment. Viz:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Recently, SCOTUS (who otherwise can be pretty strange), has bent in this direction. So maybe OR and WA might survive this, and the Swiss's idea of assisted suicide and such will be seen as visionary. At some point, I intend to take advantage of such things personally.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I am not in favor of censorship, but, I am also not in favor of 'forcing opinions' onto people regardless of the medium or method... what do I mean by that?
Let me try to give you a quick example. I have a friend that is incredibly obnoxiously loud in public, and he uses alot of profanity. I've had to distance myself from him because, while I do really enjoy his company, and he is a lifelong friend, from what I've been able to gather, he likes to pretend that he is like on one of the characters on several of the various sitcoms that he watches... For example we might go to a nice restaurant with you know, families with young children around, and he's still loudly talking about his sexual life or cussing about why such and such political candidate is useless, etc etc.... Yet, to him, if anyone would dare to ask him to keep it to himself, he would see it as censorship. He would see it as someone limiting, or placing restrictions on his 'personal freedom'.
But to me this bleeds over the edge, when we are at a public area, his words are no longer 'private' over a certain decibel level / proximity to others.
Contradictorily, if someone were to try to hand him some sort of religious tract on the streets, he would go brezerk- he would say 'how dare these @$%^@#$ try to force their opinion on me!' ---- and yet, he doesn't see what he does in public areas like restaurants as him forcing his opinion on others. (reread my very first sentence now and it should make sense in the way that I meant to express it.)-- In that sense, so many things we do are continually 'forcing' our opinions onto others. If I am in a good mood, and smiling, well... its contagious! Other people around me are cheered if I am cheerful, and thus, if it is my opinion that others around me should be happy, I am to some extent, at that period in time, 'forcing' my opinion onto them. Of course, people don't call this out because if they like what you're selling, they'll buy it.
So, what does this have to do with violent video games?
From my short lived experiences on this planet it would seem that so many humans enjoy the basest of activities- maybe not to physically participate from 1st hand, but, they certainly like to be observers of such. Sexuality, violence, oppression, strife, etc. These base qualities are used by various companies or people with agendas to trigger specific reactions from people. Usually for profit. (people on television using sexuality to sell automobiles, or people on ebay taking photos of their products in the hands of pulchritudinous females with few articles of clothing, etc.)
I quit playing violent video games a few years ago. I don't "blame" (in the sense that I do not hold them personally accountable for my actions, I would not, for example, sue them, but I will most certainly say what I'm about to say) any of the companies that made the games for my behavior while I was playing them because, well... I was the one that chose to put it on my computer and spend hours at the keyboard. But how far does that go? I mean, in various states, if you sell someone a gun and they use that gun to commit a crime, you are liable for the crimes they commit while using them. Playing various violent games for me in the past most certainly inspired me to cherish far more violent thoughts in real life- unquestionably. But I am one of those people that prides myself on the fact that I can take alot of abuse from people in real life and still treat them with respect and restrain myself from lashing out at them- verbal or otherwise------- but we all know that there are many people that pride themselves on the opposite side of that- they take pride in the fact that they will not be 'walked on' by anyone else, but will most certainly lash out to prove that they are the big man in charge, etc.
I remember I used to disdainfully ridicule the very idea that violent games could lead to violent behavior. It wasn't true in my experience, so obviously it must be false, right? But no... after man
Every able-bodied male citizen of Switzerland is conscripted into the military at age 20 for a tour of mandatory duty (women may also volunteer), and soldiers are required to keep their weapons nearby even if they're at home. This is a country where most citizens have ready access to real militarily useful guns, and the training to use them. And they're worried about Doom?
Is there a Swiss equivalent of Jack Thompson or something?
I am officially gone from
It's democracy in action. Don't like democracy when the vote doesn't go the way you like, then?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
No ...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita
Where are your stats?
Are domestic-violence fatalities higher there than in other European countries? Or is that still lower too?
Socially right winged? W T F! I think every country has it's controversial politic debates but that doesn't make it not very socially permissive and right winged. The Senate and House of Representatives would not pass such a bill (ban of violent games)?
Now that dictator Chavez wants to ban violent video games in Switzerland!? WTF? These leftist dictatorships need to be stopped! ;-)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
So do I, I live in Switzerland by the way. I think the minarett law is a scandal and Switzerland makes itself rididulous with it.
How can you single out a single religion or even a single symbol of it? I don't think it will stand before the european court of human rights.
What they should have done, to protect the swiss landscape (which doesn't include windmills b.t.w., those are dutch) is to have a law that requires new buildings to blend in with the environment. In fact such regulations are already in place, making this idiotic law superfluous.
It would allow minarets in industrial areas for example, where noone should be disturbed by them.
The two legislative organs have suggested two bans, but that's by no means the end of the story (remember, everything in politics is very slow in Switzerland, mainly due to their direct democracy approach and the fact that there's no concept of a president there to speed things up):
a) ban extremely violent games for anyone under 18 years
b) ban extremely violent games for anyone, as well as the possession, production and sale thereof
a) is well accepted and b) is highly controversial, but unfortunately made it through nevertheless. It is very unlikely that the executive will implement b) though, in fact it's even unlikely it will implement anything as there are laws banning "cruel" violence already (with a rather high bar though, considering all the horror movies making it through), and beside being too controversial, b) is in fact considered not to be implementable as it would require a constitutional change which is unlikely to happen. Even then, there would be various ways to block it if enough people agree and enforce a vote on it.
The government is against it.
The parliament however has approved two laws: one which forbids the sale of 18+ games to minors, and another one that forbids the sale of "violent" games completely.
How this doesn't mean yet that the laws come into effect just like that. Instead a lengthy process starts to sort out the details. I do not think it will really lead to a complete ban on violent games.
As the government has already pointed out, just to define and judge what a violent game is, a federal level authority would need to be institutionalized. This requires a change in the constitution, which won't happen overnight. Probably it will require a referendum.
The parliament doesn't really want to have both laws come into effect, but the goal is to get the discussion started at the political level (the political process here is slow and complicated, and it may take several years before something really happens).
Most likely outcome: they will recognize the european PEGI rating system and forbid sales of 18+ games to minors; it will take 1 or 2 years before it really comes into effect.
Sorry, I don't speak leet.
This only can really effect stores in switzerland i would assume. You could still get games off ebay etc... steam, or other online distribution methods or even go so far as well...piracy. I'm pretty sure the Swiss government is too dumb to realize there are other methods to acquiring software/games.
This is not yet a law. There isn't even a law text. The only thing that happend is that the parliament (Nationalrat and Ständerat) has given the Bundesrat (think of the president, but 7 people) the order to create such a text. But he (the Bundesrat) first wants to "wait and observe" the situation. We will likely see a proposed text in a few years. Then first the parliament (both Nationalrat and Ständerat) needs to accept one of the proposed laws. Afterwards the people can start a Referendum with 100000 signatures and then the people will vote on it. In five years we will most likely have a law that makes the pegi ratings binding (no selling of 18+ games to a twelve year old).
The title of this article is bullshit an the contents in large parts. The journalist has apparently no clue what he/she is talking about and just aims to grab attention with a grossly wrong article.
Baki is correct, there are proposals under way to create a new law. Among them an extreme 'full ban'. The likely outcome is something 'eurocompatible', e.g. similar to what the other countries (France, Germany) do.
Markus
That's a naive, if understandable way of looking at things. By that logic, the federal government couldn't have laws against murder that were enforced outside of D.C. The Constitution is a mess of clauses that inevitably conflict in the real world, and common law makes the situation even more muddled. Practically speaking, the 10th is interpreted very narrowly; i.e. the federal government has a lot of powers not specifically delegated, but rather granted through centuries of legal decisions. That's why I'm saying it's in legal limbo; until federal courts specify which side of the line it falls on, we don't know whether the law applies, but that doesn't usually stop the feds from acting on their own personal interpretation.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Because it's comparing apples (people who wanted a gun and so bought one) vs oranges (people who may or may not have wanted one but are legally required to have one anyway).
Being rational and logical, is kind of like being moral.
Everyone can have a different opinion...
I am sure Hitler thought he was being rational and logical... and moral.
It'll allow Carmageddon but forbid Rabbids go Home, as the former doesn't require violence against humans (but does allow it, with very great positive effects in game) whereas the second requires you to shout "BAAAAAAAAAAH" against humans to get more stuff from them. That's got to be one of the dumbest laws I've ever seen.
Logical as in we have both significant correlation regarding video games and violence and we have used the scientific method to prove causation. Hitler may have been able to see a very little correlation between Jews and whatever social issues he thought there were, but there was no scientifically proven causation, hence his position was not supported by facts, hence it was illogical.
It doesn't matter is someone thinks they are logical, and it doesn't matter if their logic is internally consistent if the hypothesis on which that logic is built is false.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Ah, blast. I was hoping to move to Switzerland when shit goes down in the States. Where am I going to go now?
TL;DR
oregon has physician assisted suicide. if you cannot afford medical care, the state will pay for your suicide, and no statistics are kept. Oregon's health care plan has been cited as a model for obamacare.
I believe this was heavily litigated. I think all the way to the us supreme court.
washington state also has legal physcians assisted suicide. again no statistics.
I live in oregon, and not long ago, in washingtom.
"Take the piss all you like, the fact is they have the highest gun ownership in Europe and the lowest gun crime."
Yes, but they can't just buy as many guns as they want whenever they want. They are given registered assault rifles with a regulated supply of ammo that is periodically checked by the government. And they are also given military training and discipline along with it. They actually have a well-regulated militia, unlike America.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
In other news, piracy of violent video games in Switzerland is up 12000%.
Person A) Of course god exists, the universe could not exist without the aid of a higher power.
Person B) Of course god doesn't exist, it was evolution.
I am sure I can find a shit load of people who would find both arguments the logical choice...
And now for the really good part...the GP AC is quite likely someone eligible to vote in the country with the most powerful military in the world...makes you feel good doesn't it?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
There goes the whole franchised violent video games tourneys in Swiss minarets with the local bankers sending corroborating info to the IRS/DHS business model. Back to the drawing board.
There's a difference between paranoia and preparedness. I think the long prevailing position of the Swiss is that they don't especially care for violence, but simultaneously, they know it has its place.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Yeah, well they'll just use the commerce clause to get their fingers into it like so many other things--because if you tried hard enough, at some level you could probably vaguely connect assisted suicide with commerce "among the several states".
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
From one of the article's comments which sums things up nicely:
Bullshit.
This exact same parliament, AFTER the last general elections, DENIED similar legislation two years ago. There where TWO motions passed, one that asks for legislation that prohibits the sale of violent games to minors, and one that asks for legislation (DRAFT legislation) that imposes a complete ban, the last one being passed with a much smaller majority.
This does not main that the radical proposal will be accepted by the parliament.
And then there is something much more important: in Swiss, ANY new law can be vetoed by the people. You can demand a binding referendum if you get 100.000 support votes. So, 100.000 gamers sign an internet petition, and there will be a referendum. Only 30% of the voting population has to show up to make the results legally binding. Gamers are going to vote for their hobby in massive numbers, meaning that even if this law is enacted, it will practically certainly be dead withing a month of it being accepted by parliament. IF it gets passed by parliament, that is.
Because it's comparing apples (people who wanted a gun and so bought one) vs oranges (people who may or may not have wanted one but are legally required to have one anyway).
You haven't explained the significance of that difference. To listen to gun-control advocates, more guns equals more crime. That's why they think they will reduce violent crime by disarming people who obey weapons regulations (that is, law-abiding citizens). I suppose some of them might seriously believe that a criminal willing to commit murder is worried about getting caught with an illegal weapons possession charge, but that's absurd. So when we talk of people who can realistically be disarmed, we are talking about law-abiding citizens.
In other countries, the only people who have guns are the ones who wanted them and bought them (let's call them Group A). In Switzerland, those people have guns and everyone else does, too (let's call those Group B). If the case for gun-control reducing crime were correct, Switzerland should have crime from Group A and crime from Group B. If they have less gun crime per capita than other industrialized nations, it seriously discredits the justifications given by gun-control advocates. And the use of the police power of government to remove a freedom like gun ownership does need justification.
So if anything, the relatively unique situation in Switzerland (a militia) strengthens the comparison, because anyone in Switzerland who wanted to shoot someone has ready access to firearms. In a way, this is like the reduction in violent crime that has been enjoyed by every US state which has enabled conceal-carry permits for firearms. Both situations incline me to believe that gun-control is a religious issue, because those who advocate it never seem to think very hard about the evidence against them. It does not surprise me that the desire to blame society's problems on inanimate objects would be based on rhetoric, emotional appeals, and religious fervor, and not on actual evidence.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I've always thought the Swiss above all else as rational and logical.
Yes, the country that banned motor racing for over 50 years is rational and logical.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
When I go to Switzerland, I expect it to look like Switzerland, with windmills and all that. If I wanted to look at Tehran, I'd go to Tehran.
It's a country, not a fucking amusement park.
I suppose some of them might seriously believe that a criminal willing to commit murder is worried about getting caught with an illegal weapons possession charge
You suppose wrong. It's about muggers and other small fry. A mugger won't risk a possession charge because a mugging carries a much lower penalty and being the one mugger with a gun will make the police interested.
Also the compulsory weapons in Switzerland are battle rifles, those aren't exactly ideal for concealed carrying or even crime on the streets.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
There's a difference between paranoia and preparedness. I think the long prevailing position of the Swiss is that they don't especially care for violence, but simultaneously, they know it has its place.
(Paraphrased) "If you want peace, prepare for war." - Flavius Vegetius Renatus
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I guess all violent games will simply be downloaded then.
And yet, you're still alive to tell the tale! :D
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
That's not all, last time I went to London, there wasn't a single dancing chimney-sweeper in sight! Europeans have really let themselves go.
Take my BFP (BF pillow) 9000, pink bunnies.
Giggle! It's so soft! And I don't even have to aim it!
Every male 18 to 40ish is required to serve in their military. It's not unusual to see tanks rolling down the street ...
It sounds to me as though they might be banning violent games.. not to curb violent behaviors.. but to prevent "tomorrows soldiers" from turning into couch potatoes.
After all, the Swiss Army should be known for something more than MacGuyver's dweeby pocketknife xD
People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
IANAL, but AFAIK, there is in fact no federal murder law.
Is a life sentence mandatory on murder 1 & 2? Varies by state.
Is parole possible? Varies by state.
Does the death penalty exist? Varies by state.
Is murder ever justified? Self defense is generally allowed, but exactly what constitutes valid self defense varies by state, and whether there's a "justified homicide" law as well, again, varies by state.
We might call in the FBI to investigate and arrest, but in the end, it's up to the state where the crime was committed as to what actually happens to the guy. The only exception is when the attack was directly on the federal government.
This is a much different situation than with something like pot. Should it be illegal, legal for medical use only, or legal always? If there are cases where it's illegal, what penalty should exist if you break the law? There is no consensus whatsoever on this.
Actually the Swiss have the third highest gun-related crime rate in Europe. After Estonia and Finland.
Good for Switzerland!
About time some morality was interjected into the present day culture.
Killing is bad. Depicting killing as a game is bad. Didn't your parents teach you that? If not then now is the time to learn it.
For the instant we do find a substitute for war (video games/vr games) the more aggressive and violent of us will no longer be interested, as much as they were, in killing each other. Reminds me of Full Metal Jacket how the angry aggressive war-mongering drinkers hated the chilled out potheads cause they didn't wanna fight anymore. Video Games are a real threat people, can you imagine if those young minds actually had a clearer idea of what war was really like?
I live in Switzerland (but I am a foreigner) and from chatting with several swiss people at work, all of them were shocked when this law passed. The problem was that the majority of the swiss people believed the proposed law was too stupid to pass and assumed they didn't need to go vote to prevent it from passing. The result was that all the crazy right-wing people went and voted for this law, a small minority that fell strongly against went to vote and that's why it passed with a very small margin (IIRC something like 51% favorable to the law, 49% against).
That's the sad part of being too democratic.. If you don't force people to vote, you end up with a result that depends solely on how strongly people feel about it and a few moderates who care enough about democracy to go and vote.
There are plenty of hypotheses from both sides but neither can be proven. It is not logical to assert the existence of God, nor is it logical to assert his non-existence. Logic, unfortunately plays no part in religious belief. In my experience faith is generally incompatible with logic.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
...his service rifle was propped up in the corner next to his Swatch collection.
That is the most horrifying thing I've ever heard! A Swatch collection? It's too late for him.
A month ago I started sewing, just to fix old work clothing, and now I've begun reupholstering things. Lime and teal look so good! No, NO!
Save yourself! Play violent video games, before it's too late
need to sew drapes, cushions, make doyles, must color match. can't. resist. styles.
... so it's no surprise they don't even want to fight virtual ones.
I wish they did thing like us. Here's how it would work:
1-game publisher announces game
2-Outrage at amount of violence gore sex etc
3-Concerned parents talk to congress
4-Congress talks to the ESRB
5-publisher pays off the ESRB who lowers the rating and everyone's happy.
For a country who has modeled much of their government on our system you would think they would have picked up on this already.
"We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
The summary and TFA is inaccurate. As this Swissinfo article explains, the Swiss parliament has not yet passed a law providing for a ban. They have passed a motion, which is a request that the government propose a bill that provides for a ban. Parliament must still discuss and vote on that proposed bill, and if it adopts that bill as a law, it will be made subject to a nationwide referendum if 50,000 voters request it.
...and freedom are inversely proportional. As the population increases, freedom must give way.
You are incorrect. There is a federal murder law, and it's pretty interesting. Let's suppose somebody commits a horrible murder in a state that has no death penalty. Under state law, the perpetrator might be sentenced to life, but because of the way things operate, the person could be tried under federal murder charges. Federal cases preempt state cases, so the federal case would occur first, and the murderer could be executed.
Granted, I don't think this specific example has occurred, but the beltway sniper case had a similar situation. The first victim was in a state that didn't have a death penalty, and the way it goes, somebody must serve their first sentence in one state, before a subsequent state's punishment may be levied. So there was potential for the beltway sniper to get life in prison, and not be executed. The feds stepped in and charged the two guys in federal court before the first state got the chance to convict, and the mastermind of the attacks was killed.
Take a - in my opinion very bad - people's decision and extrapolate to the general case. I guess you've really done your research:
the country is not, in general, very socially permissive
Wikipedia tells us that resident foreigners and temporary foreign workers make up about 22% of the population.
So i think we're really, really socially permissive.
Probably too much, if the vote on the ban of minarets is any indication. And i think that one was caused by several independent problems: It's the expression of our population's fear of losing their jobs to foreigners, their fear of the media-hyped islamist terrorism and the "war" you're waging on it, and most importantly the crisis caused by Ghaddafi, dictator of Libya, who is still holding one of our compatriots hostage, just to make his point.
Grown people still play shoot-em-ups? Seriously? Simulated violence is considered fun, and there is nothing better to do? That anybody over the age of 14 cares I find amazing.
A mugger with a gun is a murderer who hasn't pulled the trigger yet. What's the purpose of having the gun if they're not willing to use it?
Doesn't this strike anyone as a bit weird given the centuries of Swiss neutrality that was bought by supplying mercenary armies to whoever would pay? Including the Pope?
Yeah, there's this really old thing called national borders, customs and taxes.
It makes everything you buy from outside of your own country subject to inspections, taxes and even confiscation if it's in conflict with your country's laws...
And in Europe country is an actual country not a federal state. This goes double for nations such as Switzerland that are NOT members of the supranational EU organization.
I'll ask this once, are you American?
What you describe there is robbery, where violence or the threat of violence is used to take someone's possessions. That's considered a violent crime, even if the mugger does not actually injure anyone. If the police are not already interested in this, they need to be fired and replaced by police who are. Further, let's say that a mugger uses a knife instead of a gun. Both are deadly weapons. A person killed by a knife is just as dead as a person killed by a gun. The crime is the same either way: the criminal threatened someone with a deadly weapon in order to take their property by force.
I doubt that the unauthorized possession (with no distribution) of a type of contraband carries a more severe penalty than a violent crime, but if true, that is not how it should be, but then I digress. If the gun-control advocated are correct, then those places where firearms are completely forbidden (like Washington D.C.) should have rates of muggings and other violent crimes lower than the rest of the nation, but they don't, so clearly their theories do not describe the real world.
Speaking of muggers, one reason conceal-carry permits lower violent crime is that the predatory criminals cannot distinguish between helpless victims and those who are ready to fight back. With a gun anyone, no matter what their physical condition, can quickly and reliably present deadly force. Criminals who prey on others want helpless victims; they don't want to risk their lives in a shootout.
I see what you are trying to do there, and I wonder if you also see what you're trying to do. I made two distinct points. One point was about universal gun ownership. The other point was about US states where plenty of people choose not to own firearms, but those who do are able to obtain conceal-carry permits. Those two points were listed in the same post, but are otherwise independent. You are conflating the two points. The inability to conceal a large battle rifle has absolutely nothing to do with whether conceal-carry permits lower violent crime rates. Sorry but when people try to confuse issues like this, either accidentally or deliberately, it's a sign that they have a weak argument.
Lest there be further needless confusion, I'll explain a bit more. The position of gun-control advocates is that fewer firearms means there will be less violent crime. This is why they urge the government to restrict and/or forbid the private ownership of firearms. When you have a militia that requires every able-bodied male in every household to own a battle rifle, every household has access to firearms. When you have states that allow gun ownership and conceal-carry permits, every household that wants guns can obtain and carry them. Both situations involve more guns and more people owning guns than anything the gun-control advocates would want. Yet both situations realize the gun-control advocates' stated goal of reducing violent crime.
Upon honest appraisal, the dispassionate, intellectually honest inquirer would be forced to conclude that gun-control is a religious position that has little or no connection with reality. That movement neither addresses the evidence against it, nor feels a need to address said evidence. Its followers do not see this as a problem, as a reason to rethink their position. It's purely emotional and it's purely based on blaming human problems on inanimate objects. It's amazing to me that anyone grants it equal footing with positions based on evidence and experience.
I just described the people who support this political position, t
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Chess began as a symbolic war game. The pawns were swordsmen, the knights were knights, the rooks were war elephants, etc. The same principle might apply to other board games with opposing sides, such as checkers. PC and Console Games, anybody's guess really as to how the legislation will be written in each country. The clash between market demand as fulfilled by game developers and the perceived need for protecting the mental health of children has led to this crisis, which may turn into a growing international crisis all too soon.
Hehe, while your joke is somewhat funny a LOT of nations were in fact neutral at the time. It was a valid position! Norway, Sweden and Switzerland were all neutral nations - it didn't stop Nazi-Germany from invading Norway!
I have never ever seen a live tank yet and I've lived in Switzerland my whole life. They'd just damage the roads anyway.
Well, maybe you should stop yodelling in the hills and go into the towns and cities.
And on a related note if we outlaw possession of "hacking tools" like port scanners, password crackers and packet sniffers it'll reduce the amount of computer crime since script kiddies and other small fry won't risk a possession charge because an unauthorized access carries a much lower penalty than possession of hacking tools and being the one script kiddie with a copy of nmap will make the police interested.
or perhaps that approach is idiotic and hopeless and would only lead to sys admins being unable to check their own systems without being criminals leading to an increase in computer crime.
You can't compare Switzerland and America like that. Switzerland is a small country with a very special economy. Many things work for them that don't work in most other nations. For example, when they have unemployment, they can simply kick out a bunch of foreign workers. And the Swiss are pretty conservative to begin with, so a lot of what's not regulated by laws is enforced by social norms. On the other hand, in other areas, the Swiss government can be a lot more intrusive than the US government.
I saw them a handful of times in Hinwil, ZH from our office building. I do believe we were near a depot though.
That's why this terrible game called chess has to be banned.
It is not logical to assert the existence of God, nor is it logical to assert his non-existence.
Thank God*! I was starting to think I was the only person who realized this. I realize that there are those who fallaciously claim that because you can't disprove God, God must exist. The fact that they misuse the inability to disprove God's existence, however, is not license to ignore that inability, as so many atheists seem to think.
*No irony intended, I just can't think of another grateful interjection offhand.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
All of the laws restricting economic flows define black markets.
What are the penalties vs the demand ? Do I have to stand on a street corner in a particular part of town ?
Killing for pleasure is sick. While socially acceptable, in many places, simulated killing for pleasure is no less sick (obviously less harmful for the victim).
If you state what you are arguing for plainly-- simulated violence and killing for pleasure-- the defense of violent games/ violent other activities becomes hard to defend without sounding line a psychopath.
German and French Game-vendors are popping the champagne as we speak.
You misunderstood something; We have not singled out a religion but merely an architectural feature of a house of god. The ban on minarets does not mean a ban on mosques or the right to practice your own religion, whatever that may be!
In contrast to the grandstanding comment above, Zurich is actually very proud of its annual gay parade, and anyone in almost any canton can find a shop that sells weed with virtual impunity. Synthetic drug use is rampant. There are right-wing sentiments amongst some demographics, and the ban on minarets is widely believed to have been a mistake because of ill-formed double negatives for the actual vote. There's a certain tendency amongst the elder generation here to be "square", but the young people aren't like that at all. The one major right-wing party, UDC, has lost a lot of power and influence when they split in 2 recently, with their federal representatives leaving the fold (actually getting pushed, some say).
Switzerland is a land of social contrast - some towns are well over 50% foreigners speaking English, which is NOT one of the recognised national languages. Other places, like the town that spawned the minaret furore, have troubles with east-European immigrants not integrating well. I understand that - learning Schwytzerduutsch is notoriously difficult, spoken in dialects by 60% of the population, and NEVER in written form (satirical poems for Fassnacht notwithstanding). Even native French-speakers can have great trouble integrating properly with their German-dialect-speaking compatriots - the "Roestigraben" linguistic border/barriers are a very real phenomenon. I know plenty of Swiss who struggle with it, especially in the work place.
Last, not not least, "very right-wing" sounds very harsh, especially when there are state-sponsored, advert-free radio stations that mock every and any politician that opens their mouth. I would agree if you said Switzerland was somewhat xenophobic at times, but in general, social permissiveness here is much the same as much of the rest of neighbouring Europe (incidentally, Switzerland is NOT part of Europe, and is very much an island state as a result).
No problem. Germans buy their videogames from Austrian shops that ship to Germany. Francophone Swisses can buy them from France (Lyon is very close to Geneva and is reachable by TGV), and Italophone Swisses can buy them from Italy :3
In Switzerland we have recently passed a law to protect animal rights. Theoretically, it is illegal now to buy a single aquarium fish, because it would be alone and depressed. Such animals have to be bought in couples.
The fact is, that the swiss parliament prefers passing law on non important matters, like animal rights or video games, that might receive a general agreement from the uninformed public, rather that being unpopular buy passing laws on more important but controvertial topics, like immigration, unemployment or social insurances.
This is just the first step in a long convoluted law making process. More information on how law making in Switzerland works is found in this excellent (and entertaining) documentary:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381395/
Being Swiss too, I call bullshit. That is a very lame excuse that has been parrotted far too often.
Had we prohibited any kind of religios buildings with phallic dimensions tha thad the potential to disturb people with noise, that would have been okay.
We singled out one religion and kicked them in the 'nads. And for what? During the last forty years we've managed to get ourselves a whooping four minarettes built in the whole country. Not a single one of them caused the problems everyone was afraid of.
If nothing else, this thing is a case of political douchebaggery without precedent I can remember. People act as if muslims would come here and build those things on every corner without any kind of order. But as it is, each and every last minarett has had to be approved by the town it was built in giving the people that live there the option to appeal.
Being a federalistic country, we've managed to add even more bureaucracy by taking this single instance out of local communities' hands and making them the union's business.
Fucked up beyond all recognition is what it was. Nothing else. In my opinion, every one who would vote for something like this should be demoted to back to slave status because they clearly have no grasp of this country's procedures.
Windmills? Boy, will you be disappointed. I can't remember having seen one single windmill in this coutnry, ever. Perhaps you should stop expecting stereotyes, eh? Or at least you should stop confusing this country with the Netherlands. Or was it Sweden? You people love to confuse that one with us very much.
Or at least you should stop confusing this country with the Netherlands. Or was it Sweden?
At least in your case they stick with the same continent. The Austrians have it worse.
Ah yes, you'd be German Swiss I take it.
You're a cunt, and you're not fucking amusing.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
By that reasoning, church towers should also be forbidden. Christianity may still be practiced and even a church may exist, as long as it doesn't have a tower.
You have to admit that a single religion was singled out and now is in the law. Which is ridiculous.
Now is a good justification for piracy !
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
> learning Schwytzerduutsch is notoriously difficult, spoken in dialects by 60% of the population, and NEVER in written form (satirical poems for Fassnacht notwithstanding)
Swiss-German is being used in written form. You can bet, that most SMS, Facebook posts, e-mail's etc. are being written not in proper high-german but in swiss-german dialect by the majority of people, especially the younger generation(s). It does look funny and yes, is certainly not officially recognized, but then, Ebonics wasn't either at some point ;-)
> Because it's comparing apples (people who wanted a gun and so bought one) vs oranges (people who may or may not have wanted one but are legally required to have one anyway).
Well, to be correct, you are NOT required to keep your gun (Sturmgewehr) after your compulsory military service. It's up to you to say you wanna keep it or not.
In other news: Swiss ISPs are gearing up for an increase in Bittorrent traffic.
Hilarious that they are so concerned with military preparedness. Prepared for what exactly? Swiss in a war? Unheard of!
paves the way for an outright ban on violent video games
You've got that entirely wrong - what's the matter with you people? It is a "violent games ban", ie a violent ban on games - any game. If you are seen to play a game or otherwise enjoying yourself in an inoffensive way, a 2.5 m (this being a metric country) tall Schwarzenegger-shaped bloke will jump out from behind a bush, yelling "I'll rip your *&~#&£$&-ing head off, swine. Vot you zink your doing?".
True. Compulsory military service being defined as age 20 to approximately 34. Just being through with your on-duty days neither gets you out of the reserve (i.e. you keep a huge garbage bag full of, well, army garbage) nor does it get you out of owning an fully-automatic assault rifle.
> Just being through with your on-duty days neither gets you out of the reserve (i.e. you keep a huge garbage bag full of, well, army garbage)
> nor does it get you out of owning an fully-automatic assault rifle.
First part is correct, the second isn't. While you might still be the technical owner of the gun, you do NOT have to keep it anywhere near you. You can, as of recently, deposit it in an armory (Zeughaus), though not all of them are as of yet equipped to handle this.
True. After great opposition from Army figureheads, you are now allowed to voluntarily deposit your rifle in an armory (more or less) near you.
Unfortunately, most of the affected population won't hear but a very brief mention of this as they get all of their information about their rights (few) and duties (lots, to compensate for the lack of rights) from their superiors. Informational material from critical groups isn't really welcome in the barracks and sentencing anyone passing around flyers to pay a couple hundred bucks or sit in solitary for a few days costs the judge-jury-executioner but a smile.
Going on, you're very reluctant to think of the annual mandatory shooting exercises. Most people do them on weekends, and business hours of armories tend to be rather limited. So apart from all the travel time to retrieve and deposit that hunk of scrap metal again, don't forget to look after it for the rest of the weekend. Oh, and take care not to shoot your buddies on the range parking lot with the (unaccounted for) ammo you picked up there or any of the 3 million bullets (forced upon anybody with a gun, back in the day) whose whereabouts nobody is really sure of.
Indeed. I thought this was an interesting article on the BBC, about censorship laws following from a moral panic over an urban myth, in 1954: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8574484.stm
At first I thought, it's sad that the same madness is still going on. But then I thought, it's actually worse today - for all the madness of the 1950s law, at least it was restricted to the issue of selling to minors. But these days, bans on selling to minors is a given - it's not even debated by politicans anymore - and the new laws in various countries are about banning things even for adults.
Actually, in the Beltway Sniper case the states fought it out amongst themselves. Virginia won, because it argued (convincingly) that it could put them to death most efficiently. But you are correct that the feds occasionally involve themselves in cases like it. This page tallies the current inmates on federal death row, including a breakdown by state where the crime was committed and noting which states lack a death penalty. I believe the site is anti-death penalty, but for factual information they are a useful source.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
I too lived in Switzerland for 2 years (I suspect for the same reason as the above poster, though I no longer have anything to do with that crap, I did enjoy my time there). It is actually a safe and awesome country. Every man has a assault weapon in their home and is trained in its use. Women literally walk down dark alleys at night and nothing ever happens. They're so tolerant (well sort of, they have some xenophobia) that I've seen couples having sex clothed and unclothed in public, even same sex couples, and no one minded. It's really a mind your own business type of country. They also love the heck out of their home, to the point that gradeschool kids are required to learn the reasons that their local community's streets are named as they are (this is also a requirement for citizenship).
Overall it's a great country, though I'm not saying there aren't bad things about it. The 50 hour standard work week kind of sucks, though since NO ONE commutes (literally a 45 minute drive is an all day event over there), it might work out to about the same amount of time that the average american works. It is probably one of the top 10 best countries to live in, though it'd be at the bottom of that list, pretty much every Nordic country beats it on my criteria list (incidentally the US is around number 40 on my list, I'd have already left but am trying to finish raising my kid in a divorce situation).
Also the compulsory weapons in Switzerland are battle rifles, those aren't exactly ideal for concealed carrying or even crime on the streets.
Then why make such a big deal about them here in the States?
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Hilarious that they are so concerned with military preparedness. Prepared for what exactly? Swiss in a war? Unheard of!
Why do you think that may be? Perhaps because they are quite prepared for it, making an invasion very difficult.
Your word does me no harm.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
From what I understand, their country is essentially a giant mountain fortress filled with an entire country of well-armed militia with no real strategic value. Far easier to roll through the lowland countries like Holland in WW2. At least, I'd bet that's what the Germans were thinking.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Honestly no idea, I'd say assault rifles are more in the spirit of the second amendment than handguns because they are more useful for a militia. Assault rifles and submachine guns are the kinds of guns you'd want for a militia, in addition to man-portable rocket launchers for anti-vehicle and anti-air use. During a surprise blitzkrieg a population armed with proper military gear would be much more effective in tying the invaders up until the main force arrives (a key of Blitzkrieg is to strike a weak position, capture and fortify it before the enemy can react so the counterattack is against a strong position). On the other hand a concealed pistol has no use for a militia, you have to declare that you belong to a militia by wearing some identifying sign if you want to follow the Geneva Convention.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
A very fine line. However my point - that people having guns everywhere are not somehow automatically braver than those that don't - still stands.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
A very fine line.
It's not a fine line in the least. These are completely disparate ideas. Paranoia is a delusion marked anxiety and or fear. Preparedness is what it is: a state of being prepared. The point is, if you're prepared in mind (being disciplined and resolute), body (being fit and trained) and material needs (such as having a supply of goods beneficial to survival*), you need not be afraid.
Natural disaster? Foreign invasion? Domestic insurrection? Zombie attack? (that's a joke, son) Your life is simply made easier if you've taken the necessary steps to become generally prepared, whereas paranoia is useless to the survivalist.
However my point - that people having guns everywhere are not somehow automatically braver than those that don't - still stands.
You mean having a gun in hand doesn't make you instantly brave? Well, I don't know... There's ghettos in this country that my white ass would not walk through unarmed. However, I can definitively say that my confidence would be greatly expanded, if I were rolling through behind an M2 machine gun turret.
*serviceable weapons as applicable to militia use would certianly be counted.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
So, has it been 2 or 3 days since you last molested a child? You're a Child Molestor. QED!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Christianity (and churches and cathedrals) are part of the history of Switzerland. Islam and minarets are not.