Quite true. And since in most families a man does not need a gun to threaten his wife and children with violence, being generally bigger and stronger, it could be argued that the presence of a gun — and a woman who knows how to use it — serves to level the playing field a bit. On the other hand, it’s possible that same configuration might increase domestic violence, on the grounds that men don’t have a monopoly on jerk-dom.

The second main point the pro committee pushes is the disastrous effects on family life that a gun brings, because the father (so I presume) can threaten use of the gun. For that, they show no numbers, because I suspect they’re hard to come by. Also, what they propose – a national registry instead of a cantonal one, and a proof of need and ability – probably won’t keep those threats at bay.

Sue, the WHO numbers show that despite a much lower gun suicide rate Japan has a higher suicide rate than Switzerland. So does Belgium, Finland, Russia, Belarus, and probably more. Eliminating guns doesn’t eliminate all gun suicides. There are plenty of options.

So I think all in all the suicide issue’s a red herring, trotted out because (a) most gun deaths are suicides and (b) we have statistics for suicides. Since suicide is legal (it is in most countries), and assisted suicide is legal, suicide is no reason for gun control.

As to threatening a family with violence: it is unacceptable, of course, but I doubt red tape is going to change the rate of jerks per 100’000 inhabitants.

Mostly what I think is that if what Switzerland is worried about is suicide deaths, I have no clue why you (plural, generic) are even considering more gun control. If suicide is wrong, why is assisted suicide legal? And if it’s not wrong, what difference does the method make? (Other than to those who have to clean up afterwards.)