this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
1190 points (92.7% liked)

Political Memes

5494 readers
2298 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I don't think you mean it to be, but everything you're saying is total bollocks.

https://prateekdasgupta1.medium.com/stop-comparing-american-gun-culture-with-switzerland-if-you-are-not-willing-to-do-what-the-swiss-do-e3e765189d15

Particularly the part about guns per capita

The Swiss aren't perfect, mind. They didn't let women vote until the 70s ffs. My point being that these kinds of comparisons simply don't work. The US has a unique problem. But the problem is still solvable through gun control, because gun control can pervade culture, as demonstrated by many other countries.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So, there's a problem with those statistics; they're looking at civilian arms per capita. In Switzerland, a large number of the firearms that are in 'civilians' hands are military arms. The Swiss--in general--have to serve a term in the military as conscripts, and then have the option of taking their issued rifle home with them. That's not a "civilian" weapon though. I strongly suspect that once you account for the assault weapons--real, select-fire assault weapons, not assault-style firearms--that the numbers go up sharply. Likely not to American levels. But much higher than they are listed.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Those rifles are transferred to civilian ownership once they are discharged from the military.

Happy to see a source that says otherwise but it's illogical that because you previously served your gun is somehow "still in the military". Especially given that virtually anyone is free to own a gun once they've discharged.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Up until recently, you were given a block of ammunition for the gun that you were supposed to keep sealed in case of the militia being called up. So you were given gov't ammunition for a civilian weapon? IDK.

It seems like the numbers are getting fudged somewhere, partly because the Swiss don't keep any kind of official records. I saw one claim that put the number at roughly double the one cited, so...?

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dog there is 1.5 guns per american

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Yay! I get to be above average in at least one thing!

Seriously though - the numbers and averages don't really give a good picture of gun ownership in the US. Something like 40-ish% of US households have at least one firearm. But then somewhere around 1-5% of people in the US have something like 50% of all of the guns in the US (I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass, but it's pretty stark). If you get into competitive shooting, it ends up being really easy to have a lot of guns. So while the average might be 1.5, lots of people have no firearms at all, and a relatively small number of people have, like 20 each.

[–] Polar@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So most countries have 70% less guns, but 100% less shootings.

Math still doesn't math.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For a non-linear graph of gun deaths x guns, it absolutely does.

[–] crackajack@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Huh, it must have been an outdated info that Switzerland has the most guns per capita. But still, they have large amounts of guns per person nonethless and yet very virtually no mass shooting.

As an aside, the Swiss women's suffrage is constantly brought up as Switzerland not being democratic and being late in the modern world. I'm not trying to justify it, but that is always misconceived. Every Swiss canton in 90s but one kept rejecting the women's suffrage in their local referendums, because that canton is overwhelmingly populated by couple of hundreds of old rural people stuck in their ways. It took the Swiss Supreme Court to force that canton to finally allow women to vote. Because of that one canton, everyone outside of Switzerland thought the entire country did not allow women to vote until the 90s, which gave the country a bad historical reputation and myth.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What I said isn't a myth though. They weren't allowed to vote until the 70s. All suffrage movements start and end somewhere and there's ended later than most in Europe. Over 50% of men in Switzerland voted against women voting just ten years prior to them getting it.

Which lends exactly to my point: if we're to pick something to judge Switzerland by, it's something like that. Not misinformation about guns per capita.

[–] crackajack@reddthat.com -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Like I said, it is just one canton. People make it as though the entirety of Switzerland did not allow women to vote until the 90s when it is just one canton. It is essentially a myth. I'm not defending what happened, I'm saying it is a misconception and a myth at best.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

An earlier referendum on women's suffrage was held on 1 February 1959 and was rejected by the majority (67%) of Switzerland's men

This isn't a myth and saying "it's one canton" doesn't absolve the people who voted overwhelmingly against women being able to vote.

The result is right here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Swiss_referendums#:~:text=The%20first%20was%20held%20on,approved%20by%2062%25%20of%20voters.

I just can't figure out for the life of me why you want to defend this or keep calling it a myth.

[–] crackajack@reddthat.com -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oh you're talking about the 70s. Most people talk about the 90s when that one Swiss canton still did not allow women to vote on federal level, making as though entirety of Switzerland did not allow women to vote until the year 1990.

But sorry to be pedantic (and I am being one because I am a historical nerd and annoyed by perpetuation of historical myths), but it is Liechtenstein which is the last European country not to have allowed women to vote until 1984, not Switzerland.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't say anything about them being "last". You make a lot of stuff up for someone who cares about facts.

[–] crackajack@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I misread the previous comments.

In any case, voting rights has nothing to do with gun policies. Switzerland is pretty conservative, but it can't be denied that their gun policies and culture is sensible. American conservatives, usually the proponents of looser gun regulations, could learn from the Swiss. Give credit to where it is due.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I didn't say they had anything to do with each other, I specifically used it as an example of where Swiss policy differs from international consensus, much as American policy on gun control does from the rest of the world.

I accept your agreement on the other parts.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But the problem is still solvable through gun control, because gun control can pervade culture, as demonstrated by many other countries.

How likely do you believe it is to bring about the constitutional amendment necessary to ban firearms? To gain support of 2/3s the states in addition to a 2/3 majority in Congress?

That aside, you could argue symptoms could be addressed through such extremes if it were possible to do so, but you couldn't argue such measures address underlying issues - solve problems.

[–] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah I'm not arguing for a ban, not even for the reasons of political support; it's simply unworkable due to the "genie being out the bottle".