The original article seems to take it on faith that guns are bad, and that any concern about infringement on gun rights is maladaptive. Well, I disagree. Yes, there is fear-mongering. But, that doesn't mean the fear is ill-founded. During the ill-conceived "assault weapons ban", guns that many Americans thought it reasonable and appropriate to own were not available. The Obama administration specifically said it wished to reinstate this ban. This is not paranoia. They've withdrawn it for a number of reasons, but the administration's record clearly indicates a preference for more restriction. I will say that the political impracticality of restrictions provides some hope for gun-rights advocates, but that's far from any real trust or alignment. Also, there is a double-standard at play: People and companies will make money off of any significant movement in the people and the economy. When people sell Priuses and organic (and probably healthier) food, is that bad? What if you think concerns about diet and global warming are hyped? Is it a cynical left-wing conspiracy yet? Believe me, if you follow this market at all you will see that the supply-demand equilibrium, and some hoarding, have considerably driven up demand for firearms and ammo. It has slackened recently, possibly because of lack of impending legislation, but also because of the general economy. Most people can't afford to hoard much. ;)

Yeah, most teabaggers only brought one weapon with them to protest against health care. Times are tough.

If you are a buying an assault rifle because you think they are fun and cool that makes sense to me and possibly having it around is not enough of a social harm to be worth regulating (swimming pools are generally more dangerous to have in your household than guns (but don't kid yourself guns are still very dangerous and more likely to hurt you or someone you love than anyone else)). But if you are buying it because it will help protect you from "intruders" or "the coming Obama backed revolution" you are just insane.

Personally I find a lot of the "organic" food nuts just as deluded as the gun nuts so I agree with you there.

People are irrational superstitious and will believe almost any old stupid meme they encounter. We should discourage them as much as possible from humoring these impulses.

Becephalus:

If you are a buying an assault rifle because you think they are fun and cool that makes sense to me and possibly having it around is not enough of a social harm to be worth regulating (swimming pools are generally more dangerous to have in your household than guns (but don't kid yourself guns are still very dangerous and more likely to hurt you or someone you love than anyone else)). But if you are buying it because it will help protect you from "intruders" or "the coming Obama backed revolution" you are just insane.

If my gun is more likely to harm me or someone I love than a criminal, that just proves the effectiveness of its deterrence to criminals. It's sort of like Switzerland's army in the 1930s and 40s. Their weapons killed far more of their own soldiers in training accidents than Nazi invaders, but they did deter the Nazis from trying to take it over. (Hitler no doubt _wanted_ at least the German-speaking part of Switzerland, as they were in his opinion part of the superior German race.)

Fizzy, you are one crazy motor scooter.

You believe that your gun's being more likely to harm yourself or someone you love somehow proves its effectiveness as a deterrence to criminals?

And you believe that the puny-assed Swiss army deterred the Germans? Somehow it did not deter them in other mountainous countries, including Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway, and Finland.

Or do you claim that the Swiss convinced the Germans that they were crazy?

northwoods:

You believe that your gun's being more likely to harm yourself or someone you love somehow proves its effectiveness as a deterrence to criminals?

Technically, it's not proof, it's more a case consistency with the hypothesis of many armed households being a deterrent to criminals. I mean, look at all the young people dying in inter-gang violence. I'm told that one of the reason they join gangs is hope of income from drug sales and the lack of alternate opportunity.

Now, if you had no decent legal opportunities to make money, wouldn't you rather burglarize harmless stranger's home than get shot at in a war over drug turf? I think it's common sense. But compare the number of burglars with the number of gang members, it seems to me that a huge number of people feel they have a greater risk of getting shot by being a burglar rather than by joining a gang. That's what I call deterrence!

And you believe that the puny-assed Swiss army deterred the Germans? Somehow it did not deter them in other mountainous countries, including Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway, and Finland.

Or do you claim that the Swiss convinced the Germans that they were crazy?

Actually, Finland did bleed the Soviet Union sufficiently to save at least half their country. They allied with the Nazis because of the Soviet threat, but perhaps because of their fierocity in battle Hitler accepted their refusal to turn over Finnish Jews.

As for Yugoslavia, Greece and Norway, none of those countries had a male population universally armed and trained as military marksmen, as did Switzerland. Switzerland had a national culture going back to the William Tell legend of armed citizens successfully resisting foreign invaders. So the Nazis let the Swiss remain neutral, no Nazis got shot by the Swiss, but no doubt there were at least a few Swiss casualties of training accidents. Thus, more Swiss got shot by their own guns than Nazis; nevertheless, their militia system was key to the preservation of their ancient freedom and democracy.

crazy motor scooter! Hitler got everything he wanted from the Swiss--without attacking them. When the war was over, he no doubt planned to strangle them and then welcome them into a greater Germany.

<link>

northwoods:

crazy motor scooter! Hitler got everything he wanted from the Swiss--without attacking them. When the war was over, he no doubt planned to strangle them and then welcome them into a greater Germany.

<link>

I guess that's all the more reason for people like you to lecture the Swiss on how having an army does them more harm than good.

The Swiss Army is a lot like the Swiss Army Knife. They both seem like good ideas, but they mostly just sit around, unused.

And, please, don't tell me how you fought off a bear in the Yukon last summer.

northwoods:

The Swiss Army is a lot like the Swiss Army Knife. They both seem like good ideas, but they mostly just sit around, unused.

That was what they hoped would be the result when they organized the Swiss army.

Your point of view is kinda like saying that we should stop vaccinating against Polio as soon as the number of people who suffer serious vaccine side-effects exceeds the number of people suffering from polio. The logic may work when applied to a single family, but applied to society as a whole it is a recipe for bringing back polio epidemics. A gun carried by a trained, observant and determined private citizen is kind of like a vaccine against burglars and muggers. (This is applying the public health model to criminology.)

How about the opinion that burglars and muggers, if they have reason to believe that there is a likelihood that their intended victims are armed, will tend to shoot first and mug later? Note that the police, although hired by the public and responsible to its members, find all sorts of motions or suspicious bulges sufficient cause to shoot first. Is the latter evidence of the probability that the former would prove true?

Who is going to attack the Swiss?

Austria?

PhilfromCalifornia:

How about the opinion that burglars and muggers, if they have reason to believe that there is a likelihood that their intended victims are armed, will tend to shoot first and mug later?

Well, that's why we have the death penalty.

I think the average mugger, thinking beforehand, realizes that shooting first and then mugging the body will short-circuit the revolving-door criminal justice system that ordinary muggers have depended on since the 1960s. You'd have rewards posted for information, you'd have noise to attract witnesses, prosecutors would allocate court time (rather than offering a no-punishment plea-bargain in exchange for an easy conviction). And if the victim had a gun and the mugger's shots did not instantly disable the victim, the mugger might get shot anyway.

Note that the police, although hired by the public and responsible to its members, find all sorts of motions or suspicious bulges sufficient cause to shoot first.

That's because the policeman has no option to refrain from doing his job just because he thinks a suspect might be armed. The mugger, in contrast, is free to try his hand at less risky crimes.