Swiss Gun Laws

[Jenks]

The woeful inaccuracies regarding what you are legally allowed to do in Switzerland is a start

"dave_303"

I am not au fait with Swiss gun laws, I recall that they are complicated varying according to what canton you reside in. Is that correct?


Jenks

[dave_303]

Yes they are Jenks, however, certain things do carry across, such as being allowed to own ammo, something that is barely regulated.
The article fails to give any reference to the fact that they vary greatly.

As a side note a Swiss friend of mine claimed that in one locality they temporarily trialed storing rifles in a central barracks instead of in militamens homes, they were all promptly stolen.

[Jenks]

I have re-read the article and still think it fair: Anne the lady who was wounded in the Zug parliament shooting who you might expect to be anti ,makes the point that before the incident she was anti gun. Hermann Suter, vice-president of the Swiss lobbying group Pro Tell is allowed to voice his opinion and he does:

"It is a question of trust between the state and the citizen. The citizen is not just a citizen, he is also a soldier, " he reminds me. "The gun at home is the best way to avoid dictatorships - only dictators take arms away from the citizens.

He goes on to admit that there are flaws in the system:

I ask, that I could be refused a licence to buy a gun in the canton of Vaud and yet could hop on the train to nearby Valais and buy one there without anyone knowing I had been refused a permit a few miles down the road?

"There is a lack there," admits Mr Suter. "The systems are not connected. But today they are really on their way to fitting all the information together, and there is not a single legal gun here which is unregistered. But a national register does not necessarily avoid tragedy - 100% control you cannot organise. It's impossible."

There is of course the inevitable statistics which it appears no one believes and will always be disputed.

Finally (and it did cause me to chuckle) was Zurich university professors input:

Prof Killias cannot hide his anger with those in America who use Switzerland to illustrate their argument that more gun ownership would deter or stop violence.

"We don't have a gun culture!" he snaps, waving his hand dismissively.

"I'm always amazed how the National Rifle Association in America points to Switzerland - they make it sound as if it was part of southern Texas!" he says.

"We have guns at home, but they are kept for peaceful purposes. There is no point taking the gun out of your home in Switzerland because it is illegal to carry a gun in the street. To shoot someone who just looks at you in a funny way - this is not Swiss culture!"

There may be some inaccuracies in the piece but on the whole I thought a pretty fair article, certainly nothing to engender outrage IMHO.


Jenks

[Gaz]

I read that at the time. Sadly it's a "feature" so the BBC can get away with being as nakedly biased as it likes because, technically, it isn't "news".

It's the sort of gormless trash I'd expect to see confined to the comment pages of the Guardian, along with the antisemites and authoritarian bullies that newspaper loves to glorify.

''Gaz''


Well I have just read the article and can't for the life of me understand what leads you to comment as you do. I thought it fair and reasonable. I certainly didn't find it as you say: 'Nakedly Biased' nor did I find it as you suggest 'gormless trash'. Please explain specifically what leads you to say that.


Jenks

It starts with a survivor's account of being shot - sets the tone of "guns are evil and do evil things". That morphs into the survivor, a legislator, relating how she consistently voted to ban - sorry, regulate - guns, put them on a register, etc. "I think we are too lax with gun laws in Switzerland," she tells the Beeb's reporter.

This is followed by another account of a "psychologically disturbed" man killing people. Although it's not explicitly stated that he had the guns legally, we are nudged to think that he did because we're told the police "had already confiscated weapons from the gunman in 2005".

And here comes the campaigner's favourite word, "debate". There is a "debate" about "liberal" (in the sense of "excessive") gun laws.

Now we are given a set of stats on gun ownership. America has 89 guns per 100 people - and we all know how THAT works for them, with their sky-high rates of gun deaths, right? The writer then says Switzerland has the 3rd highest rate of gun ownership per capita, implying to us readers that Switzerland's situation can be connected to America's.

A brief mention of target shooting as a sport, and then we're into military weapon ownership. Skating over the peaceful, legal aspects, y'see.

And what a surprise, we have yet another mention of a gun murder, straight after a prominent mention of home gun storage. Those evil guns kill people! Don't you get it yet? The implication is clear: ban home gun ownership and these deaths could be stopped!

Then we have the shady, anonymous soldier with a gun at home. Unsurprisingly the BBC has chosen one who feels home gun ownership doesn't make him feel safer. Subtext: it's pointless and unnecessary, and should be banned. Oh, and just for good measure there's a picture of a family with daddy holding his issued rifle, along with the caption "Women's magazine Annabelle launched a gun control campaign in 2006".

Next comes the "traditionalist" view. Our man is "infuriated" by calls to disarm the Swiss - of course he is, dear reader, he's angry. Angry people are irrational, and irrational people shouldn't have access to "weapons", should they?

The writer asks the Swiss gun lobby bloke about a loophole in the registration system. He "admits" that it exists - see, even the gun owners know the regulatory system doesn't work! It's dangerous, readers!

Finally, after about 20 paragraphs, we have an admission that gun crime in Switzerland is low. Let's not forget the picture painted so far; guns are bad, guns lead to deaths, victims and campaigners are given prominence while the countering view is painted as an angry loner with a minority viewpoint.

But we can't have that minority view going unchallenged. Enter a professor (it's always the academics, isn't it?) who says he doesn't think guns are bad (honest, guv, cross my heart and hope to die), but he says "there is a strong correlation between guns kept in private homes and incidences occurring at home - like private disputes involving the husband shooting the wife and maybe the children, and then committing suicide." Again, dear reader, home gun ownership leads to murders. Subtext: ban them and this won't happen. The prof quotes lots of stats supporting his viewpoint, while revealing he is anti gun ownership.

The real sordid details come now, reader. Children - innocent children - are exposed to these evil guns, those same guns which lead to deaths in the home and the random killings of innocent people. 600,000 children no less. Here our writer finally drops into the first person and we get a sense of her own viewpoint:

"He loads my rifle and, reluctantly, I shoot twice at the target - the first shots I've ever fired in my life. When I see I've scored highly with a very accurate shot, I feel an electric frisson of excitement go through my body. I wonder how children manage that sense of thrill, and suggest that perhaps gun clubs glorify weapons and encourage an unhealthy fascination with guns?"

She's guilty of projection - because she thinks it's glorifying "weapons", the children must be being corrupted by this! Subtext: Guns are bad, reader, even in the controlled environment of the range.

We revert to our professor again, who says some useful and balanced things about gun culture in the US, and its absence in Switzerland. But this is too close to being balanced, so we have to end on an anti-gun note. And sure enough, our victim-cum-campaigner is back with these words: "It takes just a short moment if a weapon is used to destroy a lot, as you can see with my story."


Any questions, Jenks? smile2

[froggy]

IMO Gaz has made very valid points

A journalist is supposed to have an objective yet impartial view on an event. Yet the author EJ Kirby is by her own admition viceraly "opposed" to guns He loads my rifle and, reluctantly, I shoot twice at the target and can not help to stress she is one of the nice person that a reluctant to all "gun-things".

now that the majority of soldiers don't have ammunition at home, we have seen a decrease in gun violence a corrolation between service weapons and gun violence is made. A plain & simple out-right lie.

The Swiss army SG550 assault rifle has been used in many suicides, as well as the Zug massacre while in fact the criminal use of service weapons is extremely rare. True the vast majority of illicit use of those weapons is for suicide. Does the avaibility of a rope or a shoe lace leads to suicide by hanging the way it is implied that a weapons does by shooting ? BTW both options far preferable IMO to gaz inhalation that posses a potentially fatal risk to innocent neighbours .

The majority of soldiers don't have ammunition at home, we have seen a decrease in gun-related suicides... Today we see maybe 200 gun suicides per year and it used to be 400, 20 years ago. " Bottom line those depressed people stop commiting suicide because they dont have a gun available. Of course they dont hang themselves, swallow sleeping pills, breath exhaust fumes, jump of bridges etc ... etc... This statement is nothing short of an insult to the readers IQ...

[Chuck]

Most common cause of child deaths at home- alcoholic and drug dependant mothers and one of many boyfriends!

[Blu]

"We have guns at home, but they are kept for peaceful purposes.

Yep and here in the USA I have guns of all types at home. They are also for peaceful purposes and shall remain so as long as I am left in peace. Even if there are no firearms in a home, show me any man who would not fight tooth and nail, even kill with whatever comes to hand to protect his family. I have a wife and three sons, three sons all grew up in a house were there are firearms just like millions of other kids all over the US and Switzerland. Their daddies didn't shoot them or their mothers either.

The article is a typical anti gun article IMO.

Blu

[Blu]

Jenks,

Well I have just read the article and can't for the life of me understand what leads you to comment as you do. I thought it fair and reasonable.

Nothing new there then Jenks, you usually do with these kind of stories mate.

Blu

[Chuck]

Would anyone REALY say they kept guns at home for criminal purposes...of course not, it's a stupid article. ONE professor speaks for everyone - sounds like the GCN nutters.