If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Switzerland no longer a safe gun-toting mecca   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 114
    More: Scary, Swiss Police, RTS, Daillon  
•       •       •

14892 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-02 11:50:30 PM
I knowi know if this happened in America...some gun luvin' armed citizen would've dropped him in his tracks!
 
2013-01-03 12:22:21 AM
 
2013-01-03 12:45:59 AM
This is not Switzerland's first mass-shooting... There was one in Zug's Cantonal Parliament in 2001, and one in 1912.
 
2013-01-03 01:03:09 AM
"The gunman had reportedly been drinking heavily before the shooting."

Time to implement restrictions on alcohol then. We've seen booze-fueled tragedies much larger scales, especially during the holiday season.

Say bye-buy to your six-packs and hard liquors you drunk savages.
 
2013-01-03 01:03:19 AM

fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias


Someone was calling Israel a utopia? There's missiles flying into people's backyards, for fark's sake.
 
2013-01-03 01:03:55 AM
Well, in Switzerland everybody has a gun. So the NRA should do everything they can to make sure everybody has TWO guns.

And, just like in the US, the NRA has some recommended outlets where you can buy more guns,

GUNS!

(Yes, I know that Switzerland doesn't have an NRA)
 
2013-01-03 01:06:35 AM

fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias


Crap. Well, we've still got Somalia, right?
 
2013-01-03 01:11:37 AM
I'm sure this thread will be full of respectful, insightful comments...like every other Fark gun thread.
 
2013-01-03 01:14:40 AM

Mitch Taylor's Bro: I'm sure this thread will be full of respectful, insightful comments...like every other Fark gun thread.


I think it'll be interesting to compare it to the thread directly above it.
 
2013-01-03 01:18:30 AM
fusillade

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias


From the link: "Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns"

So NOW they have a mass shooting....

Kinda makes the NRA's point, doesn't it?
 
2013-01-03 01:21:12 AM

fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias


That article is, at best, a gross misrepresentation of Swiss gun laws, practices, and ownership culture.

Here is an overview from an actual Swiss citizen and shooter who knows the actual laws:

Some Notes on the Swiss Firearms Experience (and Some 5.56 NATO Ammo for Sane Gun Policy Advocates)
 
2013-01-03 01:23:04 AM
Christ, can we just arm the school teachers already?
 
2013-01-03 01:24:06 AM

The Bestest: Mitch Taylor's Bro: I'm sure this thread will be full of respectful, insightful comments...like every other Fark gun thread.

I think it'll be interesting to compare it to the thread directly above it.


Ha, I'm reading it now. So far, it's not so bad.
 
2013-01-03 01:26:03 AM

fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias


Just like their unsafe citizens, I couldn't access their site because my web protection blocked all javascript.
 
2013-01-03 01:26:35 AM
I think it's time to ban them. Villages have a sordid history of producing criminals. It's time to ban villages. If the immoral minority seeks to keep protecting these sordid lairs of death construction, then the right, and good majority should shoot them full of holes until all of their blood drains out. We must arm, and come fully packed and ready to oust folks from murderous villages, for they are the scourge of towns, and townships the world over. STOP THE VILLAGES!
 
2013-01-03 01:31:30 AM
Guess what? Where there are guns, there are people getting shot with guns. There are no places where people have no guns and yet nobody dies. There are places where nobody has guns but guess what? In those places, people get stabbed or beaten to death. It's almost as though guns were merely tools people use to enable themselves to kill more effectively.
 
2013-01-03 01:32:39 AM

Ooba Tooba: I think it's time to ban them. Villages have a sordid history of producing criminals. It's time to ban villages. If the immoral minority seeks to keep protecting these sordid lairs of death construction, then the right, and good majority should shoot them full of holes until all of their blood drains out. We must arm, and come fully packed and ready to oust folks from murderous villages, for they are the scourge of towns, and townships the world over. STOP THE VILLAGES!


I prefer the term "hamlet".
 
2013-01-03 01:33:03 AM
There are 45.7 civilian owned guns per 100 people in Switzerland.
 
2013-01-03 01:39:48 AM

Snargi: fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

Just like their unsafe citizens, I couldn't access their site because my web protection blocked all javascript.


Dude, it's not some GeoCities tinfoil-hatted whackdoodle site, it's the Washington Post, ferchrissakes.
 
2013-01-03 01:41:04 AM

fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias


The Hell you say!
 
2013-01-03 01:49:37 AM

The_Sponge: Ooba Tooba: I think it's time to ban them. Villages have a sordid history of producing criminals. It's time to ban villages. If the immoral minority seeks to keep protecting these sordid lairs of death construction, then the right, and good majority should shoot them full of holes until all of their blood drains out. We must arm, and come fully packed and ready to oust folks from murderous villages, for they are the scourge of towns, and townships the world over. STOP THE VILLAGES!

I prefer the term "hamlet".


Hey, the Dutch just came out with the term "scum villages" and I like that.
 
2013-01-03 01:50:31 AM

The Lone Gunman: Well, in Switzerland everybody has a gun. So the NRA should do everything they can to make sure everybody has TWO guns.

And, just like in the US, the NRA has some recommended outlets where you can buy more guns,

GUNS!

(Yes, I know that Switzerland doesn't have an NRA)


Actually, we do.
 
2013-01-03 01:58:07 AM
There is hell of alot of guns in most countries in Africa, but no one brings that up
 
2013-01-03 02:04:10 AM

Gyrfalcon: Guess what? Where there are guns, there are people getting shot with guns. There are no places where people have no guns and yet nobody dies. There are places where nobody has guns but guess what? In those places, people get stabbed or beaten to death. It's almost as though guns were merely tools people use to enable themselves to kill more effectively.


No, no, no. Its the weapons. Look at England, they banned guns and they are a utopia. Oh, crap, they're not. But they've banned knives, and soon, they will ban trees. Because trees have big heavy limbs that you can use to hit people and therefore promote violence. After that, though, everyone will be safe there, forever.

And this really is a shocking story and would make me rethink any plan to go the Switzerland. 5 people shot. 5 people could never get injured by the same person in a country that has no guns....Switzerland has really turned into an unsafe hellhole because of the guns there...
 
2013-01-03 02:04:29 AM
Meh, the primary problem in the U.S. is that gun ownership is treated as a right. This is a problem because people don't measure the constitution up to any standard except for itself. "It's a good right because it's in the constitution" is simply not an argument, yet it's promoted as such by both the left and the right in this country.

Other countries like the ones mentioned above don't have this issue. Gun ownership is like owning a car - the regulations aren't the same, but they're both matters of utilitarian public policy. Once you take the rhetorical varnish off of the issue, there's a lot more room for level-headed policy-making.

So, Libs, the only solution is to repeal the 2nd amendment. The sooner that fact is accepted, the sooner it will actually happen. Wait, no, who am I kidding. We're doomed to continually flip the two sides of the Gang Banger - Rugged Cowboy coin forever. Viva la muerte.

/dammit, I successfully resisted these threads for so long
 
2013-01-03 02:08:09 AM
So let's limit everyone's freedom and leave all decisions up to a few heavily armed people. That will fix everything.
 
2013-01-03 02:19:53 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: Meh, the primary problem in the U.S. is that gun ownership is treated as a right. This is a problem because people don't measure the constitution up to any standard except for itself. "It's a good right because it's in the constitution" is simply not an argument, yet it's promoted as such by both the left and the right in this country.


So, the U. S. is founded on religion.  The Constitution is our Bible, our Ten Commandments.
 
2013-01-03 02:32:50 AM

The Lone Gunman: Well, in Switzerland everybody has a gun. So the NRA should do everything they can to make sure everybody has TWO guns.

And, just like in the US, the NRA has some recommended outlets where you can buy more guns,

GUNS!

(Yes, I know that Switzerland doesn't have an NRA)


Wat
 
2013-01-03 02:32:57 AM
What I leanrt from this article is that cat shooting, is so common it's the first reaction to gunfire
 
2013-01-03 02:36:44 AM

super_grass: "The gunman had reportedly been drinking heavily before the shooting."

Time to implement restrictions on alcohol then. We've seen booze-fueled tragedies much larger scales, especially during the holiday season.

Say bye-buy to your six-packs and hard liquors you drunk savages.


You're doing it wrong.

The solution here is MORE ALCOHOL AND GUNS. If there had been more drunken gun owners about this drunken lunatic would have been shot down before shooting anybody down.
 
2013-01-03 02:37:29 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Seth'n'Spectrum: Meh, the primary problem in the U.S. is that gun ownership is treated as a right. This is a problem because people don't measure the constitution up to any standard except for itself. "It's a good right because it's in the constitution" is simply not an argument, yet it's promoted as such by both the left and the right in this country.

So, the U. S. is founded on religion.  The Constitution is our Bible, our Ten Commandments.


Somehow, someway I think this is why America has amendments to the Constitution. If my memory of history serves me, I believe we once had slavery, women could not vote, etc. We changed that to roll with the times.

Also I read something somewhere about separation of church and state.
 
2013-01-03 02:38:22 AM

Pete_T_Mann: Look at England, they banned guns


jasonjeffrey.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-03 02:42:24 AM

fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias


WaPo's really gone to town on it - there's a companion piece on gun ownership from the following day's edition. The BBC's More or Less statistics programme also did a piece (mp3 link) on this a couple of weeks ago. Here's the sources for their numbers since they didn't include them in the podcast (#/% firearms homicides, firearm homicide/homicide rate per 100,000):

U.S.A. - 8,874 of 13,164 (67.4%), 2.84/4.22
Canada - 170 of 554 (30.7%), 0.49/1.61
Switzerland - 40 of 53 (75.5%), 0.51/0.67
England and Wales - 39 of 657 (5.9%), 0.07/1.17

And since it inevitably comes up when such a comparison is made: there were 205 knife homicides for 2009/10 in the UK compared to 1,732 for the equivalent period in the U.S., which equates to knife homicide rates of 0.56 in the U.S. and 0.37 in the U.K. (i.e., you're still more likely to get knifed to death in the U.S.)
 
2013-01-03 02:43:21 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: Meh, the primary problem in the U.S. is that gun ownership is treated as a right. This is a problem because people don't measure the constitution up to any standard except for itself. "It's a good right because it's in the constitution" is simply not an argument, yet it's promoted as such by both the left and the right in this country.

Other countries like the ones mentioned above don't have this issue. Gun ownership is like owning a car - the regulations aren't the same, but they're both matters of utilitarian public policy. Once you take the rhetorical varnish off of the issue, there's a lot more room for level-headed policy-making.

So, Libs, the only solution is to repeal the 2nd amendment. The sooner that fact is accepted, the sooner it will actually happen. Wait, no, who am I kidding. We're doomed to continually flip the two sides of the Gang Banger - Rugged Cowboy coin forever. Viva la muerte.

/dammit, I successfully resisted these threads for so long


The vast majority of legal gun owners, though, are responsible gun owners. There are over 270 million guns owned by about 100 million people, and how many of those people actually use any of their guns to commit a crime each day? Or each year? The number is very, very, very, very small. Guns being a right is not a problem. So why would you want to punish 100 million people because every year a handful of legal gun owners commit a crime with their guns?
 
2013-01-03 02:51:13 AM
Switzerland: Europe's America's Finland
 
2013-01-03 03:07:04 AM

Pete_T_Mann: Gyrfalcon: Guess what? Where there are guns, there are people getting shot with guns. There are no places where people have no guns and yet nobody dies. There are places where nobody has guns but guess what? In those places, people get stabbed or beaten to death. It's almost as though guns were merely tools people use to enable themselves to kill more effectively.

No, no, no. Its the weapons. Look at England, they banned guns and they are a utopia. Oh, crap, they're not. But they've banned knives, and soon, they will ban trees. Because trees have big heavy limbs that you can use to hit people and therefore promote violence. After that, though, everyone will be safe there, forever.

And this really is a shocking story and would make me rethink any plan to go the Switzerland. 5 people shot. 5 people could never get injured by the same person in a country that has no guns....Switzerland has really turned into an unsafe hellhole because of the guns there...


Clearly. If we were all naked and disarmed, there would be no violence! We'd all just sit around in peace and harmony and nakedness until someone rediscovered fists and fingernails...
 
2013-01-03 03:12:59 AM

super_grass: Time to implement restrictions on alcohol then. We've seen booze-fueled tragedies much larger scales, especially during the holiday season.


Fun fact: The legal drinking age in Switzerland is 16 for beer and wine, and 18 for spirits. You can also open carry your alcohol.
 
2013-01-03 03:14:08 AM

Mock26: So why would you want to punish 100 million people because every year a handful of legal gun owners commit a crime with their guns?


Have you considered that it might not be about punishing? That it might not be about you?
 
2013-01-03 03:14:36 AM
The main differences between a shooting in Switzerland and America of course is that the Swiss are firstly shocked by it and secondly not calling for armed guards in every house.
 
2013-01-03 03:16:23 AM
Switzerland is, in fact, a very heavily armed country. Every male citizen is a soldier for most of his life (age 18 to 52, IIRC) and must be able to mobilize at a moment's notice. To this end, they all have their uniform and army rifles at home with exactly 3 bullets which they must be able to produce at all times.

My buddy in Geneva is part of an anti-tank unit, so in addition to his rifle and 3 bullets, he also has a bazooka and related ordinance at home.

/Switzerland, home of heavily-armed neutrality
 
2013-01-03 03:27:06 AM
No chocolate for you!
 
2013-01-03 03:30:19 AM

capt.hollister: Switzerland is, in fact, a very heavily armed country. Every male citizen is a soldier for most of his life (age 18 to 52, IIRC) and must be able to mobilize at a moment's notice. To this end, they all have their uniform and army rifles at home with exactly 3 bullets which they must be able to produce at all times.

My buddy in Geneva is part of an anti-tank unit, so in addition to his rifle and 3 bullets, he also has a bazooka and related ordinance at home.

/Switzerland, home of heavily-armed neutrality


Fave slightly-off-topic WWII anecdote:

Supposedly Himmler asked some minister in Switzerland how big their army was, if Germany were to challenge their neutrality. "We currently have 100,000 soldiers in our armed forces," the minister said.
"Then what if I send 200,000 men over your border?" Himmler asked.
"Each of us will have to shoot twice," the minister replied.
 
2013-01-03 03:36:12 AM

Ilmarinen: Mock26: So why would you want to punish 100 million people because every year a handful of legal gun owners commit a crime with their guns?

Have you considered that it might not be about punishing? That it might not be about you?


Just out of curiosity what would you call the revocation of one of your constitutional rights because someone else committed a crime if not a punishment? A reward?
 
2013-01-03 03:48:41 AM

super_grass: "The gunman had reportedly been drinking heavily before the shooting."

Time to implement restrictions on alcohol then. We've seen booze-fueled tragedies much larger scales, especially during the holiday season.

Say bye-buy to your six-packs and hard liquors you drunk savages.


We should bring prohibition back. BOOM! EVERYTHING FIXED! :P
 
2013-01-03 05:48:44 AM

Ilmarinen: Mock26: So why would you want to punish 100 million people because every year a handful of legal gun owners commit a crime with their guns?

Have you considered that it might not be about punishing? That it might not be about you?


I said the same thing about prohibition.
...But all those selfish beer drinkers, they just don't care about the greater good.
 
2013-01-03 05:51:12 AM
Switzerland can brag about their marksmanship or citizen army all they want, but the REAL reason they arent on anyones invasion list is because the terrain sucks and there's nothing there resource wise to justify an invasion anyway.

If the Swiss had oil, or diamond mines or gold or hell just lots of fertile land, it would have switched hands at least 5 times in the last century alone.
 
2013-01-03 06:02:08 AM
They said he was mental.
 
2013-01-03 06:02:54 AM
Time to ban guns. The crime with them just keeps getting worse and worse. Oh wait...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Link

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-03 06:25:55 AM

fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias


That article with information from Rosenbaum and Klein has some laughably wrong information about Switzerland.

"First of all, because they don't have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased."

False.

http://www.fedpol.admin.ch/content/ejpd/de/home/dokumentation/abstimm u ngen/2011-02-13/faq.faq_9.html

Link

Switzerland is in the top five for per capita firearm ownership. The Swiss army issues about 30,000 NEW Sturmgewehr 90s a year.

"Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn't this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid."

FALSE, for Switzerland at least. There is absolutely no cause needed to own a gun in Switzerland. The part about having to go back every six months is ridiculously false, no such requirement exists for firearm ownership in Swizterland.

"Switzerland doesn't promote gun ownership."

FALSE again. You know those 30,000 machineguns, yes, real machineguns, not semiautomatics, the government hands out every year? Soldiers can BUY those at the end of their service and keep them. There are over a million privately owned machineguns in the hands of Swiss citizens, and that only comprises about 12 percent of privately owned firearms. Switzerland has one of the largest shooting events in the world every year, Feldschiessen, drawing in upwards of 250,000 people, which I believe is bigger than any such event in the United States.

"Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household."

False again. The federal government guarantees the right to keep guns at home.

The part about "Switzerland has been moving to keeping guns in depots?"

FALSE. This is ludicrously inaccurate information perhaps based on a failed 2011 referendum "Für den Schutz vor Waffengewalt" in which, had it passed, military weapons would have to be kept in depots instead of homes. 75 percent of kantons rejected this measure. It is not even remotely close to becoming law, let alone the standing law as that retard suggests it is.
 
2013-01-03 06:32:59 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: Meh, the primary problem in the U.S. is that gun ownership is treated as a right. This is a problem because people don't measure the constitution up to any standard except for itself. "It's a good right because it's in the constitution" is simply not an argument, yet it's promoted as such by both the left and the right in this country.

Other countries like the ones mentioned above don't have this issue. Gun ownership is like owning a car - the regulations aren't the same, but they're both matters of utilitarian public policy. Once you take the rhetorical varnish off of the issue, there's a lot more room for level-headed policy-making.


A "goo" right as opposed to a "bad" right? Do we really wnat to go there? Could we not apply the same standard to marriage for example. It is not a right but a licensed, regulated activity drivien by public policy. Or how about the "right" to an abortion or the "right" to tax payer provided"free" health care?

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." (John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763, reprinted in The Works of John Adams 438 [Charles F. Adams ed., 1851])

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense." (John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America [1787-1788])

"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. " Bill Clinton, 4/19/94, MTV's "Enough is Enough"
 
2013-01-03 06:42:55 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: There is hell of alot of guns in most countries in Africa, but no one brings that up


Not surprising. What goes on in those places doesn't exactly support the "An armed society is a polite society" narrative.
 
2013-01-03 07:10:20 AM

Deep Contact: They said he was mental.


Time to ban brains.

[checks fark politics tab]

Mission Accomplished.
 
2013-01-03 07:25:44 AM

jso2897: drjekel_mrhyde: There is hell of alot of guns in most countries in Africa, but no one brings that up

Not surprising. What goes on in those places doesn't exactly support the "An armed society is a polite society" narrative.


Of course, in "those places" the guns have a surprising tendency to be in the hands of a select subset of the population and consistently pointed at the rest of it. As opposed, say, to places in which the oppressed people have access to weapons. Odd, the groups of people who were clamoring for the United States and Europe to airlift small arms to the Syrian rebels.
 
2013-01-03 07:27:05 AM

Ilmarinen: Mock26: So why would you want to punish 100 million people because every year a handful of legal gun owners commit a crime with their guns?

Have you considered that it might not be about punishing? That it might not be about you?


That's obvious. It's all about you.
 
2013-01-03 07:40:33 AM

HeWhoHasNoName: fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

That article is, at best, a gross misrepresentation of Swiss gun laws, practices, and ownership culture.

Here is an overview from an actual Swiss citizen and shooter who knows the actual laws:

Some Notes on the Swiss Firearms Experience (and Some 5.56 NATO Ammo for Sane Gun Policy Advocates)


Whoever that guy is, he's seriously cherry picking information to support his pro-gun stance! I lived in Switzerland for 25 years back in the day when you were still required to keep your army assault rifle at home, something that is no longer the case now. So I had one of them too. But even then when most people had their army guns at home, gun laws (from which that army rifle was exempt) in Switzerland were very, very strict. That is still the case now. If you want a gun you need to have a very good reason and there are stringent background checks.

As for the army gun, you may have had the gun at home, but that doesn't mean you get to use it whenever you want. You were given a sealed tin of 20 bullets. If you rock up to your annual reserve training with that tin opened you'll wander straight to jail, even if all the bullets are still inside. You can't buy bullets without a weapons licence either, which practically no one in the country has.

In reality that meant almost every home had a gun, but you weren't able to do anything with it. There were however still quite a few suicides via those army guns. If you're going to kill yourself you don't exactly worry about what will happen if you open your sealed tin of bullets. This was ultimately the reason why the gun is no longer kept at home. So these days it's almost unheard of having a gun at home.
 
2013-01-03 07:41:18 AM

The Lone Gunman: Well, in Switzerland everybody has a gun. So the NRA should do everything they can to make sure everybody has TWO guns.

And, just like in the US, the NRA has some recommended outlets where you can buy more guns,

GUNS!

(Yes, I know that Switzerland doesn't have an NRA)


Yes they do. It's called "ProTell".
 
2013-01-03 07:42:59 AM
Humans kill humans, ban all humans.
 
2013-01-03 07:58:28 AM

The Lone Gunman: Well, in Switzerland everybody has a gun. So the NRA should do everything they can to make sure everybody has TWO guns.

And, just like in the US, the NRA has some recommended outlets where you can buy more guns,

GUNS!

(Yes, I know that Switzerland doesn't have an NRA)


They don't need one, they don't have a Brady Bunch and allied mass media trying to disarm the peasants and ensure only the politicians and criminals have guns. (I know, I'm repeating myself.)
 
2013-01-03 07:58:45 AM

Ilmarinen: Mock26: So why would you want to punish 100 million people because every year a handful of legal gun owners commit a crime with their guns?

Have you considered that it might not be about punishing? That it might not be about you?


Maybe it isn't, but it has that effect, so to his and my viewpoints, the end result is exactly the same whether that is the intent or not.
 
2013-01-03 08:01:09 AM

ex-nuke: The Lone Gunman: Well, in Switzerland everybody has a gun. So the NRA should do everything they can to make sure everybody has TWO guns.

And, just like in the US, the NRA has some recommended outlets where you can buy more guns,

GUNS!

(Yes, I know that Switzerland doesn't have an NRA)

They don't need one, they don't have a Brady Bunch and allied mass media trying to disarm the peasants and ensure only the politicians and criminals have guns. (I know, I'm repeating myself.)


They have their own version of the NRA anyway: http://www/protell.ch
 
2013-01-03 08:07:34 AM

saugoof: Whoever that guy is, he's seriously cherry picking information to support his pro-gun stance! I lived in Switzerland for 25 years back in the day when you were still required to keep your army assault rifle at home, something that is no longer the case now.


False:

Swiss overwhelmingly reject plan to tighten gun control in referendum
AP - Swiss voters came out strongly in favor of their right to bear arms Sunday, with a clear majority rejecting a plan by churches and women's groups to tighten the Alpine nation's liberal gun laws.

Official results showed more than half of Switzerland's 26 cantons (states) voted against the proposal to ban army rifles from homes and impose new requirements for buying other guns.
 
2013-01-03 08:15:41 AM

capt.hollister: Switzerland is, in fact, a very heavily armed country. Every male citizen is a soldier for most of his life (age 18 to 52, IIRC) and must be able to mobilize at a moment's notice. To this end, they all have their uniform and army rifles at home with exactly 3 bullets which they must be able to produce at all times.

My buddy in Geneva is part of an anti-tank unit, so in addition to his rifle and 3 bullets, he also has a bazooka and related ordinance at home.

/Switzerland, home of heavily-armed neutrality


This is a lie. No one has ammo for their guns, unless they're at a shooting range or if they're in quick response groups, of which there are very few. Most Swiss give their guns back to the government after their service is up, anyway.
 
2013-01-03 08:16:22 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: Meh, the primary problem in the U.S. is that gun ownership is treated as a right


Well, because it IS a right.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..

The 2nd amendment never gave us the right to own firearms, it recognized that we ALREADY had the right, and the government was not to take that right away.
 
2013-01-03 08:18:36 AM

saugoof: HeWhoHasNoName: fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

That article is, at best, a gross misrepresentation of Swiss gun laws, practices, and ownership culture.

Here is an overview from an actual Swiss citizen and shooter who knows the actual laws:

Some Notes on the Swiss Firearms Experience (and Some 5.56 NATO Ammo for Sane Gun Policy Advocates)

Whoever that guy is, he's seriously cherry picking information to support his pro-gun stance! I lived in Switzerland for 25 years back in the day when you were still required to keep your army assault rifle at home, something that is no longer the case now. So I had one of them too. But even then when most people had their army guns at home, gun laws (from which that army rifle was exempt) in Switzerland were very, very strict. That is still the case now. If you want a gun you need to have a very good reason and there are stringent background checks.

As for the army gun, you may have had the gun at home, but that doesn't mean you get to use it whenever you want. You were given a sealed tin of 20 bullets. If you rock up to your annual reserve training with that tin opened you'll wander straight to jail, even if all the bullets are still inside. You can't buy bullets without a weapons licence either, which practically no one in the country has.

In reality that meant almost every home had a gun, but you weren't able to do anything with it. There were however still quite a few suicides via those army guns. If you're going to kill yourself you don't exactly worry about what will happen if you open your sealed tin of bullets. This was ultimately the reason why the gun is no longer kept at home. So these days it's almost unheard of having a gun at home.


They're not even allowed the sealed tins, any more. Switzerland has really hardcore gun control laws.
 
2013-01-03 08:18:45 AM

dudemanbro: So let's limit everyone's freedom and leave all decisions up to a few heavily armed people. That will fix everything.


It depends on what you mean by fixed. A few heavily armed people mig t mean jobs for everyone.

www.nazigassings.com

Some people preferred to be cared for than being free because being free comes with burdens like self responsibility and self reliance. The more those burdens are diminished the more individual freedom is diminished
 
2013-01-03 08:28:51 AM

Pete_T_Mann: Gyrfalcon: Guess what? Where there are guns, there are people getting shot with guns. There are no places where people have no guns and yet nobody dies. There are places where nobody has guns but guess what? In those places, people get stabbed or beaten to death. It's almost as though guns were merely tools people use to enable themselves to kill more effectively.

No, no, no. Its the weapons. Look at England, they banned guns and they are a utopia. Oh, crap, they're not. But they've banned knives, and soon, they will ban trees. Because trees have big heavy limbs that you can use to hit people and therefore promote violence. After that, though, everyone will be safe there, forever.

And this really is a shocking story and would make me rethink any plan to go the Switzerland. 5 people shot. 5 people could never get injured by the same person in a country that has no guns....Switzerland has really turned into an unsafe hellhole because of the guns there...


Britain banned some semi-auto and high calibre guns after a guy bought himself an arsenal and wiped out a bunch of his neighbours. Then they banned handguns after some other guy shot up a classroom of kids. They've had one mass shooting since where a guy used a plain old shotgun to kill 12 people, but they haven't banned shotguns because as far as they're concerned all reasonable precautions have been taken. Now they're focusing on making it easier for doctors to flag if a patient is suicidal or a potential risk to others, but when I last checked nothing had been signed into law as there are a boatload of very tricky privacy issues to consider.

It's illegal to carry some types of blades in public. As it is pretty much anywhere.

Britain may not be a Utopia, but they've consistently had a murder rate five times lower than yours, even before they started getting stricter on gun control. The only reason they banned the guns they did was because a) their antiquated laws weren't made to cover the type of weapons available in modern times and b) the guns in question really weren't useful for anything other than killing lots of people, unlike the shotgun the last shooter had which is used all the time, especially in the farming industry.
 
2013-01-03 08:33:04 AM

saugoof: HeWhoHasNoName: fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

That article is, at best, a gross misrepresentation of Swiss gun laws, practices, and ownership culture.

Here is an overview from an actual Swiss citizen and shooter who knows the actual laws:

Some Notes on the Swiss Firearms Experience (and Some 5.56 NATO Ammo for Sane Gun Policy Advocates)

Whoever that guy is, he's seriously cherry picking information to support his pro-gun stance! I lived in Switzerland for 25 years back in the day when you were still required to keep your army assault rifle at home, something that is no longer the case now. So I had one of them too. But even then when most people had their army guns at home, gun laws (from which that army rifle was exempt) in Switzerland were very, very strict. That is still the case now. If you want a gun you need to have a very good reason and there are stringent background checks.

As for the army gun, you may have had the gun at home, but that doesn't mean you get to use it whenever you want. You were given a sealed tin of 20 bullets. If you rock up to your annual reserve training with that tin opened you'll wander straight to jail, even if all the bullets are still inside. You can't buy bullets without a weapons licence either, which practically no one in the country has.

In reality that meant almost every home had a gun, but you weren't able to do anything with it. There were however still quite a few suicides via those army guns. If you're going to kill yourself you don't exactly worry about what will happen if you open your sealed tin of bullets. This was ultimately the reason why the gun is no longer kept at home. So these days it's almost unheard of having a gun at home.


The underlying issue is that pro-ban folks say the existence of a gun will cause a crime. If people are not using a readily available gun and ammunition to commit crimes, the example falls apart.
It's people who commit crimes, and the rate has got a lot more to do with Swiss culture and its other government policies.

At best, gun control changes how a crime might be committed. People like me care less about the how and are more interested in deterring criminals to begin with.
If you had the same "assault rifle in every home" policy in Mexico, you'd see them involved in more shootings.

...but that brings us back to the point. You can't fix Mexico, or break Switzerland, solely by tampering with the gun policy.
 
2013-01-03 08:39:01 AM

jso2897: drjekel_mrhyde: There is hell of alot of guns in most countries in Africa, but no one brings that up

Not surprising. What goes on in those places doesn't exactly support the "An armed society is a polite society" narrative.


These people hack each other up with machetes when they are good and ready. I'm not sure what a western politico can be expected to make of that.
"Yay, gun control does/doesn't matter because there's too many violent farkwads and no statistics."?
It comes back to the culture, and African culture is a wrecking yard of corruption and bad foreign influence.

/The question is, if you lived there, would you still want a gun? Would you want your friends to have guns?
/If yes then gun control doesn't exactly work for you...
 
2013-01-03 08:42:32 AM

Shakin_Haitian: capt.hollister: Switzerland is, in fact, a very heavily armed country. Every male citizen is a soldier for most of his life (age 18 to 52, IIRC) and must be able to mobilize at a moment's notice. To this end, they all have their uniform and army rifles at home with exactly 3 bullets which they must be able to produce at all times.

My buddy in Geneva is part of an anti-tank unit, so in addition to his rifle and 3 bullets, he also has a bazooka and related ordinance at home.

/Switzerland, home of heavily-armed neutrality

This is a lie. No one has ammo for their guns, unless they're at a shooting range or if they're in quick response groups, of which there are very few. Most Swiss give their guns back to the government after their service is up, anyway.


Wrong, wrong, and absolutely false. Swiss citizens absolutely can and do have ammo for guns at their house.

There are over a million privately owned, government-given machineguns in the country.
 
2013-01-03 08:45:27 AM
With rights come responsibilities. I never hear the firearm fetishist faction speak of responsibility.
 
2013-01-03 08:47:54 AM

saugoof: HeWhoHasNoName: fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

That article is, at best, a gross misrepresentation of Swiss gun laws, practices, and ownership culture.

Here is an overview from an actual Swiss citizen and shooter who knows the actual laws:

Some Notes on the Swiss Firearms Experience (and Some 5.56 NATO Ammo for Sane Gun Policy Advocates)

Whoever that guy is, he's seriously cherry picking information to support his pro-gun stance! I lived in Switzerland for 25 years back in the day when you were still required to keep your army assault rifle at home, something that is no longer the case now. So I had one of them too. But even then when most people had their army guns at home, gun laws (from which that army rifle was exempt) in Switzerland were very, very strict. That is still the case now. If you want a gun you need to have a very good reason and there are stringent background checks.

As for the army gun, you may have had the gun at home, but that doesn't mean you get to use it whenever you want. You were given a sealed tin of 20 bullets. If you rock up to your annual reserve training with that tin opened you'll wander straight to jail, even if all the bullets are still inside. You can't buy bullets without a weapons licence either, which practically no one in the country has.

In reality that meant almost every home had a gun, but you weren't able to do anything with it. There were however still quite a few suicides via those army guns. If you're going to kill yourself you don't exactly worry about what will happen if you open your sealed tin of bullets. This was ultimately the reason why the gun is no longer kept at home. So these days it's almost unheard of having a gun at home.


Laughably incorrect. You most certainly can buy ammo. Guns are still (abundantly, at that) kept at home. The fact you're saying it's almost unheard of to have guns at home is hilariously false.
 
2013-01-03 08:51:18 AM

Shakin_Haitian: capt.hollister: Switzerland is, in fact, a very heavily armed country. Every male citizen is a soldier for most of his life (age 18 to 52, IIRC) and must be able to mobilize at a moment's notice. To this end, they all have their uniform and army rifles at home with exactly 3 bullets which they must be able to produce at all times.

My buddy in Geneva is part of an anti-tank unit, so in addition to his rifle and 3 bullets, he also has a bazooka and related ordinance at home.

/Switzerland, home of heavily-armed neutrality

This is a lie. No one has ammo for their guns, unless they're at a shooting range or if they're in quick response groups, of which there are very few. Most Swiss give their guns back to the government after their service is up, anyway.


Bullshiat. You can buy all the ammo you want in Switzerland for your military issue gun, and they are used in civilian shooting competitions all the time. In fact, shooting in Switzerland is like baseball in the US: It's the national sport. Some 200,000 people compete in the annual "Feldschiessen" competition in Switzerland. With a population of just 8 million, that's fully 2.5% of the population for a single event. To put that in perspective, in the US that would mean nearly 8 million people attending a similar event. In the US, the national shooting competition is at Camp Perry, there are just a bit over 6,000 competitors (high water mark was in the early 1960's with over 7,000 competitors).

As for the ammo, Switzerland no longer issues ammo to most militia members. That is no bar for them to privately buy as much ammo as they want for their military guns, though: 5.56x45mm military ammo is commonly available and the only "registration" is that sales of ammo (including military calibers) is recorded in a "bound book" in the store where it is purchased. If the ammo is purchased at the range, it is supposed to be fired there, but apparently that rule is widely ignored.
 
2013-01-03 08:53:17 AM
Since God was removed from villages this was inevitable.
 
2013-01-03 09:07:57 AM

DesktopHippie: Britain may not be a Utopia, but they've consistently had a murder rate five times lower than yours, even before they started getting stricter on gun control. The only reason they banned the guns they did was because a) their antiquated laws weren't made to cover the type of weapons available in modern times and b) the guns in question really weren't useful for anything other than killing lots of people, unlike the shotgun the last shooter had which is used all the time, especially in the farming industry.


OK, so the question is:

If they've consistently had a murder rate five times lower than ours, even before they started getting stricter gun control, and they have maintained that, what was the point of the additional gun control? Because apparently the "type of weapons available in modern times" and 'guns useful for killing lots of people' weren't a problem *BEFORE* the bans.

Also, I'd take exception to your characterizations: The 1996-1997 handgun bans banned *ALL* modern handguns, including specialized target pistols. The UK government had to enact a special exception to their complete ban to allow the Olympic pistol competitions to happen last year.

That ban is so complete that it includes single shot cartridge pistols, the first of which appeared in the 1840s. Hell, cartridge revolvers were invented in 1855, and semi-automatic pistols are well over 100 years old now. Hardly the idea of a "modern" gun, when you ban guns that have been around for nearly 160 years.

I'd also like to point out that the UK averaged about one mass shooting per decade before the two bans, and they are still roughly on track with a single mass shooting that happened 14 years after Dunblane (there can be a wide variation in the actual time between shootings: Random events tend to cluster naturally).

So if the laws didn't reduce homicides or suicides, and they didn't reduce mass shooting events, what good are they? They don't do what their proponents claim they would do. So why not err on the side of more freedom instead of less? Why not overturn the ban on handguns? It's been what, 16 years now? If the law was going to have some effect, it would have happened by now (especially since all legally registered guns were turned in). Why not allow their ownership again? Certainly it would do no harm, as people who decide to go on rampages simply substitute weapons that they can acquire, and at handgun-type engagement ranges, there is nothing more deadly than a shotgun.
 
2013-01-03 09:10:01 AM

BillyRayBob: fusillade

Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

From the link: "Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns"

So NOW they have a mass shooting....

Kinda makes the NRA's point, doesn't it?


Switzerland already had mass shootings. Just one example from a decade ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Leibacher
 
2013-01-03 09:10:28 AM
Uh, "drug addict" and "mental health patient" aren't lingo used to describe responsible gun owners...
 
2013-01-03 09:11:12 AM

2wolves: With rights come responsibilities. I never hear the firearm fetishist faction speak of responsibility.


Then you haven't spoken to many gun owners. The gun culture in the United States - note I said gun culture, not criminal culture - is primarily concerned with gun safety and responsibility. Yes, really. It's kind of a big deal. And the big evil NRA is in fact a major player in promoting safety, responsibility, and training.
 
2013-01-03 09:19:52 AM

2wolves: With rights come responsibilities. I never hear the firearm fetishist faction speak of responsibility.


Would you apply the same logic to Freedom of Speech, or Freedom of Religion, or Freedom of Assembly?

Also, it's those who fear weapons themselves, as if they had some sort of totemistic power all their own independent of human action who are the true firearms fetishists:

fetish (plural fetishes)
Something which is believed to possess, contain, or cause spiritual or magical powers; an amulet or a talisman. [from the early 17th c.]
Something sexual or nonsexual, such as an object or a part of the body which arouses sexual desire or is necessary for one to reach full sexual satisfaction. [from the early 19th c.]
(US) An irrational, or abnormal fixation or preoccupation. [from the 19th c.]


At least two of those definitions describe hoplophobes better than hoplophiles, and given the abnormal obsession with penis size that firearms opponents seem to have, so much so that Markley's Law is the gun version of Godwin's Law, one could argue that all three apply.
 
2013-01-03 09:50:02 AM
I think an important part of this article is being overlooked. Quote from a witness, "At first I didn't realise what was going on. I thought children were shooting at cats..." Apparently this would not be considered anything unusual in Switzerland?
 
2013-01-03 09:52:15 AM

dittybopper: DesktopHippie: Britain may not be a Utopia, but they've consistently had a murder rate five times lower than yours, even before they started getting stricter on gun control. The only reason they banned the guns they did was because a) their antiquated laws weren't made to cover the type of weapons available in modern times and b) the guns in question really weren't useful for anything other than killing lots of people, unlike the shotgun the last shooter had which is used all the time, especially in the farming industry.

OK, so the question is:

If they've consistently had a murder rate five times lower than ours, even before they started getting stricter gun control, and they have maintained that, what was the point of the additional gun control? Because apparently the "type of weapons available in modern times" and 'guns useful for killing lots of people' weren't a problem *BEFORE* the bans.

Also, I'd take exception to your characterizations: The 1996-1997 handgun bans banned *ALL* modern handguns, including specialized target pistols. The UK government had to enact a special exception to their complete ban to allow the Olympic pistol competitions to happen last year.

That ban is so complete that it includes single shot cartridge pistols, the first of which appeared in the 1840s. Hell, cartridge revolvers were invented in 1855, and semi-automatic pistols are well over 100 years old now. Hardly the idea of a "modern" gun, when you ban guns that have been around for nearly 160 years.

I'd also like to point out that the UK averaged about one mass shooting per decade before the two bans, and they are still roughly on track with a single mass shooting that happened 14 years after Dunblane (there can be a wide variation in the actual time between shootings: Random events tend to cluster naturally).

So if the laws didn't reduce homicides or suicides, and they didn't reduce mass shooting events, what good are they? They don't do what their proponents claim the ...


Well, they had an inquiry after Hungerford and decided that the weapons had been a huge factor in how many people the shooter had been able to kill and weren't really useful for anything else, so they banned them. They had another inquiry after Dunblane and came to more or less the same conclusion about handguns. The guy walked into a sports hall and shot every adult and every kid in the room bar one, and killed about half of them. He'd actually planned on opening up on the kids during their school assembly, but when he asked a random kid what time their assembly was the kid mistakenly said it was 9:30am, not 9am.

In Cumbria, on the other hand, the guy shot his victims in different locations and then moved on. He travelled about 15 miles to kill 12 people, giving the police time to figure out what was happening and warn people to stay in off the streets. It was bad, but if the guy had been armed the way the previous shooters had been the death toll is likely to have been far higher. So as far as the UK is concerned, they've done what they can on the weapons side to prevent mass slaughters like this. It's not as if anyone in the UK seems to miss the guns types that have been banned anyway.
 
2013-01-03 09:56:54 AM
reposted from an earlier thread...

I come from a country with next to no civilian access to firearms. Gun licenses are issued by the police department at the sole discretion of the police commissioner's office. They even regulate the ammunition. There's no such thing as a gun store here.

Only 3% of the population has a gun license here and a minimum of 1/3rd of those are held by present and retired police officers as well as competition shooters. We have almost no gun hunting and you can't even legally use a gun in self defense (though the one case we have on record was ultimately dismissed since it was a retired cop who did the shooting in his own home). You can't carry them in public, concealed or otherwise. And like Britain, only a small percentage of our police force is armed.

Now we have had a spike in gun crime in the last several years, but that's been restricted to drug dealers killing eachother (american and latin american gangs are trying to turn our island into a transshipment point) and a number of bank / convenience store robberies. No domestic gun crime and even the criminals have extremely limited access to firearms to the point that the cops say, of the shootings we did have, most of them were done by the same one or two guns.

Now, my country has no historical or cultural love for guns and it's a very, very small country on top of that so I won't pretend our situation is the same as the United States (or in this case, Switzerland). But I'd just like to point out that the vast majority of the world is like my little country, with very limited access to guns, and coincidentally manages to have very little gun crime. It's hard to argue there's not something to that.
 
2013-01-03 10:03:31 AM

Shakin_Haitian: They're not even allowed the sealed tins, any more. Switzerland has really hardcore gun control laws.


Did you even READ the link by the guy that lives there now and not 'back in the day'?

They aren't issued ammo now, but they can readily buy 5.56.
 
2013-01-03 10:05:19 AM
Huh? You mean thar's bad guys in other countries too?
Who would have guessed. i thought they were only in Merixa.

Now please return to your regularly scheduled funny retarded redneck voice idiocy whilst perched atop your little ivory thrones.
 
2013-01-03 10:11:03 AM

Graveworks: I think an important part of this article is being overlooked. Quote from a witness, "At first I didn't realise what was going on. I thought children were shooting at cats..." Apparently this would not be considered anything unusual in Switzerland?


It might be unusual but more likely in their minds than an adult shooting a bunch of people. During the Hungerford massacre several of the shooter's neighbours thought he was messing about and marched out of their houses to yell at him for making too much noise. It didn't even occur to them that he was shooting people until they were hit.
 
2013-01-03 10:13:25 AM

computerguyUT: Huh? You mean thar's bad guys in other countries too?
Who would have guessed. i thought they were only in Merixa.

Now please return to your regularly scheduled funny retarded redneck voice idiocy whilst perched atop your little ivory thrones.


Dude WTF ivory has been banned for years. I don't need a throne made from farking elephant tusks. Geez!
 
2013-01-03 10:37:54 AM

capt.hollister: Switzerland is, in fact, a very heavily armed country. Every male citizen is a soldier for most of his life (age 18 to 52, IIRC) and must be able to mobilize at a moment's notice. To this end, they all have their uniform and army rifles at home with exactly 3 bullets which they must be able to produce at all times.

My buddy in Geneva is part of an anti-tank unit, so in addition to his rifle and 3 bullets, he also has a bazooka and related ordinance at home.

/Switzerland, home of heavily-armed neutrality


Since 2007, militia members haven't been allowed to keep any ammunition at home unless they are part of a unit that protects airports or similar sensitive installations.
 
2013-01-03 10:43:11 AM

Mock26: There are 45.7 civilian owned guns per 100 people in Switzerland.


That .7 gun must jam a lot...
 
2013-01-03 11:07:40 AM
A lot of people seem to think that buying and being able to use ammunition at shooting ranges only is the same as having ammo at home. In Switzerland, you can't have ammo at home. Even the military can't have ammo unless they're part of fast responders, which very few of them are.

Switzerland has strict gun control and sucky blogposts aren't going to change that.
 
2013-01-03 11:23:51 AM

Shakin_Haitian: A lot of people seem to think that buying and being able to use ammunition at shooting ranges only is the same as having ammo at home. In Switzerland, you can't have ammo at home. Even the military can't have ammo unless they're part of fast responders, which very few of them are.

Switzerland has strict gun control and sucky blogposts aren't going to change that.


Please provide some kind of link to show that people cannot have ammunition at home. Yes the Military stopped providing take home ammo.

Even the wiki page says that most types of ammunition is available for commercial sale.
 
2013-01-03 11:25:27 AM
Really? Why is there always a knee-jerk reaction to re-examine our liberties every time a crazy goes all cray-cray?
 
2013-01-03 11:31:00 AM

Benjamin Orr: Shakin_Haitian: A lot of people seem to think that buying and being able to use ammunition at shooting ranges only is the same as having ammo at home. In Switzerland, you can't have ammo at home. Even the military can't have ammo unless they're part of fast responders, which very few of them are.

Switzerland has strict gun control and sucky blogposts aren't going to change that.

Please provide some kind of link to show that people cannot have ammunition at home. Yes the Military stopped providing take home ammo.

Even the wiki page says that most types of ammunition is available for commercial sale.


For use at ranges only. You have to read the whole wiki.
 
2013-01-03 11:32:02 AM
If I was a Swiss Everyman, I'd want to play this kind of thing up, to scare away the billionaire oligarchs who'd otherwise price the locals out of their own country.

/"Make Dubai your Galt's Gulch".
 
2013-01-03 11:35:34 AM
Seth'n'Spectrum Meh, the primary problem in the U.S. is that gun ownership is treated as a right. This is a problem because people don't measure the constitution up to any standard except for itself. "It's a good right because it's in the constitution" is simply not an argument, yet it's promoted as such by both the left and the right in this country.


The American constitution is secular scripture. It's treated like that because it's the only thing keeping the country on a steady course. If it wasn't for this reverence, then fly-by-night demogogues would be able to change the established order to follow whims and fashion. Gun ownership is a right, but it's not a gift of the constitution. The constitution merely enumerates a right that's so important, it rates enumeration.

It works each way for right and left. Guns are here to stay. Got it in Sacred Writing. Heard anything about the flag burner amendment lately? Me neither.
 
2013-01-03 11:36:16 AM

Shakin_Haitian: Benjamin Orr: Shakin_Haitian: A lot of people seem to think that buying and being able to use ammunition at shooting ranges only is the same as having ammo at home. In Switzerland, you can't have ammo at home. Even the military can't have ammo unless they're part of fast responders, which very few of them are.

Switzerland has strict gun control and sucky blogposts aren't going to change that.

Please provide some kind of link to show that people cannot have ammunition at home. Yes the Military stopped providing take home ammo.

Even the wiki page says that most types of ammunition is available for commercial sale.

For use at ranges only. You have to read the whole wiki.


I did... maybe you should read it again and point out what you think tells you this. I saw the section that ammo sold at ranges is supposed to be used there.

Strange that they have laws covering hunting, firearm carry permits and the transport of firearms (including keeping the ammo separate) when nobody can have ammo at home,
 
2013-01-03 11:39:26 AM
Also strange that this guy managed to shoot people with ammo that he can't have. Or they other guy in the article who fired into the ceiling at a restaurant.
 
2013-01-03 11:40:43 AM

give me doughnuts: capt.hollister: Switzerland is, in fact, a very heavily armed country. Every male citizen is a soldier for most of his life (age 18 to 52, IIRC) and must be able to mobilize at a moment's notice. To this end, they all have their uniform and army rifles at home with exactly 3 bullets which they must be able to produce at all times.

My buddy in Geneva is part of an anti-tank unit, so in addition to his rifle and 3 bullets, he also has a bazooka and related ordinance at home.

/Switzerland, home of heavily-armed neutrality

Since 2007, militia members haven't been allowed to keep any ammunition at home unless they are part of a unit that protects airports or similar sensitive installations.


Misleading. They can still buy ammo themselves.
 
2013-01-03 11:41:53 AM

Maul555: Why is there always a knee-jerk reaction to re-examine our liberties every time a crazy goes all cray-cray?


It's not a cause, it's an opportunity, Maul.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste.
- Rahm Emanuel
 
2013-01-03 11:42:37 AM

Shakin_Haitian: A lot of people seem to think that buying and being able to use ammunition at shooting ranges only is the same as having ammo at home. In Switzerland, you can't have ammo at home. Even the military can't have ammo unless they're part of fast responders, which very few of them are.

Switzerland has strict gun control and sucky blogposts aren't going to change that.


Yeah. You can.

Why do you people keep repeating this? You're reading what Wiki says and confusing it. They can't keep government issued ammo at home. They can, however, purchase and own 5.56 ammo themselves, any any other caliber.
 
2013-01-03 11:45:25 AM

fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias


==========

Beat me to it. Those guns belong to trained militia.
 
2013-01-03 11:46:50 AM

Fissile: fusillade762: Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias

==========

Beat me to it. Those guns belong to trained militia.


Guess what's monumentally bigger than the other:

The number of Army-issued guns

The number of privately owned guns
 
2013-01-03 11:53:02 AM

phartman: The Lone Gunman: Well, in Switzerland everybody has a gun. So the NRA should do everything they can to make sure everybody has TWO guns.

And, just like in the US, the NRA has some recommended outlets where you can buy more guns,

GUNS!

(Yes, I know that Switzerland doesn't have an NRA)

Actually, we do.


I've gotten a lot of replies saying this. And I get that other countries would have organizations that would protect gun rights. I'm talking about extremity. Hell, even George Bush Sr quit the NRA because he felt they were too extreme and I believe that the NRA is more concerned with sales than with safety or security. Is the Swiss version of the NRA like this?
 
2013-01-03 11:56:02 AM

The Lone Gunman: phartman: The Lone Gunman: Well, in Switzerland everybody has a gun. So the NRA should do everything they can to make sure everybody has TWO guns.

And, just like in the US, the NRA has some recommended outlets where you can buy more guns,

GUNS!

(Yes, I know that Switzerland doesn't have an NRA)

Actually, we do.

I've gotten a lot of replies saying this. And I get that other countries would have organizations that would protect gun rights. I'm talking about extremity. Hell, even George Bush Sr quit the NRA because he felt they were too extreme and I believe that the NRA is more concerned with sales than with safety or security. Is the Swiss version of the NRA like this?


To be specific, George H.W. Bush said he agreed with most everything the NRA said. He famously quit them because he said they slandered federal law enforcement agents in one specific magazine article.
 
2013-01-03 11:56:14 AM

stevarooni: Maul555: Why is there always a knee-jerk reaction to re-examine our liberties every time a crazy goes all cray-cray?

It's not a cause, it's an opportunity, Maul.

You never let a serious crisis go to waste.
- Rahm Emanuel


unfortunately, you are mostly right
 
2013-01-03 11:58:39 AM

The Lone Gunman: I'm talking about extremity. Hell, even George Bush Sr quit the NRA because he felt they were too extreme and I believe that the NRA is more concerned with sales than with safety or security. Is the Swiss version of the NRA like this?


I doubt if George Bush Sr would be a member of the Swiss version of the NRA....

You have an idea of what gun rights should look like. The NRA promotes a different ideal. If you know the NRA, though, you know that they're a strong organization for safety and security...just not to the point of infringing on gun right to do so. They're very much about training, including teaching young kids to stay away from guns and contact an adult if they happen across them. What's your standard of safety and security?
 
2013-01-03 12:24:13 PM
Ok, let's bring some facts to the table.

The Swiss Army should have recuperated most of the ammunition it allows soldiers to keep at home very soon, Defence Minister Ueli Maurer has assured parliamentarians.
More than 240,000 boxes of bullets had been returned by the end of August, Maurer said on Monday. That is out of a maximum total of 257,000 boxes, according to estimates calculated in October 2007. The army should have the rest "in the weeks to come," he said.
The army does not expect to recuperate about 7,500 boxes, which were sent to recruitment schools and to those serving a long-term military career. Some 5,200 soldiers have not yet returned their ammunitions but digital records and cross referencing should clarify who has what, Maurer said.

Parliament demanded in 2007 that most of the ammunition sent home with soldiers be returned by the end of 2009.


Link

Want to buy ammo?

https://www.gunfactory.ch/div/bedingungen.htm

Regulations on buying ammo / weapons (Google Translate of regulations from above site below)?

Link

Sales mail
for Swiss citizens or
* Foreigners with Swiss C-card:
Federal conditions (using the terms) to acquire arms. For long and short arms, as well as gun parts (grips, barrel and slide parts) send us your valid Swiss Weapons Acquisition certificate and a photocopy of an official personal identity card (ID-CH, CH-CH C-card or passport)
We ship all supplies of ammunition, weapons or weapons parts inscribed by hand.

For ammunition and reloading components, the copy of an official personal identity card.
important:
If you're not yet known to us as a customer, please send us the following documents:
- Copy of official Swiss personnel identification (ID or passport)
and
- Copy of a Central Criminal-statement, not older than 3 months
- (Or a copy of a weapons purchase certificate, not older than 2 years)
- (Or a copy of a weapons carrier certificate, not older than 6 months)
- (Or copy of a current hunting Swiss passport)
- (Or a copy of a European firearms pass)

Article covering the proposed restrictions as well as storing military weapons in depots versus home.
Link

/..... so I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies
 
2013-01-03 12:36:17 PM

Ilmarinen: Mock26: So why would you want to punish 100 million people because every year a handful of legal gun owners commit a crime with their guns?

Have you considered that it might not be about punishing? That it might not be about you?


So you would then be absolutely, 100%, OK with the banning of alcohol because drunk drivers kill more people every year than people do with firearms? Hell, if that is your attitude then you should be actively pursuing a ban on all alcohol, right?

Also, it is a punishment. Anytime you limit the rights and/or put restrictions on a person BECAUSE OF WHAT SOMEONE ELSE DID it is a form of punishment. Taking away my right to own firearms (or even restricting my privilege if it were not a right) because of the actions of a few mentally disturbed people DOES make it about me.
 
2013-01-03 02:14:10 PM

DesktopHippie: In Cumbria, on the other hand, the guy shot his victims in different locations and then moved on.


It's almost like he planned it that way in order to maximize his effectiveness with weapons that might not let him stay in one place and still be effective...
 
2013-01-03 02:21:03 PM

topcon: To be specific, George H.W. Bush said he agreed with most everything the NRA said. He famously quit them because he said they slandered federal law enforcement agents in one specific magazine article.


It's not like he was a long-standing member of the NRA either: He signed up for a life membership when he was running for president in 1988, to get their endorsement. It cost him $500.

In other words, his joining the NRA wasn't because he had some life-long belief in gun rights, it was a calculated political move in order to gather votes, and a pretty cheap one at that.
 
2013-01-03 02:27:55 PM

The Lone Gunman: I believe that the NRA is more concerned with sales than with safety or security.


The NRA is a USER GROUP. The firearms industry group is the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

In fact, the NRA has been just fine with boycotts of firearms manufacturers. Like they were with Smith and Wesson, at the time the largest US manufacturer of handguns, because they had signed a deal with the Clinton administration.

Right now, there are rumbles among the NRA membership about a boycott of Dicks Sporting Goods, a major firearms retailer, because of their decision to stop carrying modern sporting rifles.

Hardly the actions of an organization that is more worried about firearms sales than anything else.
 
2013-01-03 03:29:11 PM

ArmagedDan: Then you haven't spoken to many gun owners. The gun culture in the United States - note I said gun culture, not criminal culture - is primarily concerned with gun safety and responsibility. Yes, really. It's kind of a big deal. And the big evil NRA is in fact a major player in promoting safety, responsibility, and training.


www.newscorpse.com

LOL

Oh and here's some real NRA ads

bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com

gaia.adage.com

t3.gstatic.com

www.gunreports.com

There's lots more...... Funny, I don't see anything there about being a safe and responsible gun owner. Just a lot of blustering about how everyone is trying to abridge your gun rights, and must be stopped. It seems that they're PRIMARILY concerned with fear-mongering and urging everyone to buy the products of the companies that probably give them lots of money. Because a scared and fully armed American seems to be the PRIMARY goal of the NRA.  What could go wrong??
 
2013-01-03 04:15:18 PM

cryinoutloud: There's lots more...... Funny, I don't see anything there about being a safe and responsible gun owner. Just a lot of blustering about how everyone is trying to abridge your gun rights, and must be stopped.


Given Obama's call for more gun control, just after the election and even before he starts his second term, it sort of makes the NRA look prophetic, doesn't it?

Not that it took a genius to see it: I was arguing on Fark at least 3 years ago that Obama wasn't likely to act on gun control until after he gets reelected, and I'm no genius.
 
2013-01-03 04:30:38 PM

dittybopper: The Lone Gunman: I believe that the NRA is more concerned with sales than with safety or security.

The NRA is a USER GROUP. The firearms industry group is the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

In fact, the NRA has been just fine with boycotts of firearms manufacturers. Like they were with Smith and Wesson, at the time the largest US manufacturer of handguns, because they had signed a deal with the Clinton administration.

Right now, there are rumbles among the NRA membership about a boycott of Dicks Sporting Goods, a major firearms retailer, because of their decision to stop carrying modern sporting rifles.

Hardly the actions of an organization that is more worried about firearms sales than anything else.


I'd be more convinced if Wayne LaPierre didn't spend so much time bragging about gun sales.

And I wouldn't say these are 'hardly the actions etc etc'. Rumblings are not action. Besides, I get that the NRA might be concerned about the government taking action against firearms and ammo, but I seriously doubt that a privately owned outlet's decision not selling a product that probably deems unprofitable infringes on anybody's right to do anything.
 
2013-01-03 06:56:22 PM

cryinoutloud: ArmagedDan: Then you haven't spoken to many gun owners. The gun culture in the United States - note I said gun culture, not criminal culture - is primarily concerned with gun safety and responsibility. Yes, really. It's kind of a big deal. And the big evil NRA is in fact a major player in promoting safety, responsibility, and training.



LOL

Oh and here's some real NRA ads









There's lots more...... Funny, I don't see anything there about being a safe and responsible gun owner. Just a lot of blustering about how everyone is trying to abridge your gun rights, and must be stopped. It seems that they're PRIMARILY concerned with fear-mongering and urging everyone to buy the products of the companies that probably give them lots of money. Because a scared and fully armed American seems to be the PRIMARY goal of the NRA.  What could go wrong??


As a member who gets all their spam, I definitely agree that they've been pounding on the NoBama drum waaay too hard. It was my #1 complaint about them up until they grossly mishandled their response to Sandy Hook.

So you've posted some pictures from their don't-like-Obama blitz. How does that "prove" that they don't deal in gun safety? They're a big organization. That's like saying the US goverment doesn't handle mail, because they debate on taxes.

And whatEVER the NRA does, anyway, it doesn't change the grassroots US firearm culture and its serious focus on safety and responsibility.
 
2013-01-04 04:06:14 PM

dittybopper: DesktopHippie: In Cumbria, on the other hand, the guy shot his victims in different locations and then moved on.

It's almost like he planned it that way in order to maximize his effectiveness with weapons that might not let him stay in one place and still be effective...


Well, yeah. He did. Cuz he couldn't just stand in one place and mow down everyone that came across him like the Hungerford guy.
 
Displayed 114 of 114 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report