Annabelle, a women's magazine, was enlisted in the campaign to ban the gun. "We don't know any women who want a weapon in the house," says Lisa Feldmann, the editor. "Women and the younger generation think this is crazy."And we all know how much the efforts and sacrifices of creaturettes like Lisa and their younger counterparts, that is, the globalist socialists, have kept Switzerland sovereign and free, right?
We've dealt with these subversive twa...uh...twits from Annabelle before.
Nicki or somebody, give me a hand here--I'm about ready to say something misogynistic, except somehow, I think the real women-haters are the ones who would rather see them brutalized or dead than armed.
I pray for the Swiss that there are enough real men and women there to overcome and survive the cancer within. I have the same prayer for America.
[Via Dan Gifford, who referred to this story as 'William Tell Rolls Over']
I'm sure we can spot what's missing from this story.
ReplyDeleteThe laws changed in Switzerland. Starting in 1999, concealed weapons were restricted, and permits issued on an "as-needed" basis. (Does it ever occur to any disarmer that the "need" is generally demonstrated only after the victim is dead?)
Apparently having an "assault" rifle in your house, with 24 rounds of ammunition, doesn't really help when you're not at home. I note that none of the victims were armed.
I've also read that the EU has required less restrictive borders. It's hard to gauge if this is relevant, because, oddly, the author has chosen to omit names. That makes it harder to do research.
Funny how this stuff is missing from the article.
Okay, that post didn't help. I'm still annoyed with the article.
ReplyDeleteNot only are relevant facts missing from the article, but the chronology is wrong, and the author attempts to make it appear that there are currently no restrictions on arms.
And then we have:
"But the price of eternal vigilance is frequent funerals: in 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large.
Nice cherry-picking, there. The BCS data for England and Wales for the 2005-2006 year period is not finalized, and the report clearly states:
"There were 46 homicides involving firearms in 2005/06, 40 per cent (or 31 offences)
fewer than 2004/05. Although a provisional figure, this is the lowest recorded since the
late 1980s."
So the author of the article chose to compare specifically to the year in BCS crime statistics that was anomalous compared the trends of the past 15+ years. It may not even be for the same period. Perhaps he would like to compare to the BCS statistics for the 2002-2003 year?
Other crime statistics from the UK do not compare so favorably.