1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Swiss soldiers face loss of right to store guns at home

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Calibre44, Feb 25, 2009.

  1. Calibre44

    Calibre44 Active Member

    May 17, 2007
    United Kingdom
    "A coalition led by the country's Social Democrat party and the Greens has collected nearly 120,000 signatures to force a national referendum on whether the weapons should be stored at military bases.

    The coalition of 74 groups says the weapons are involved in too many suicides and murders in the country and tighter controls are needed."

    Click here
  2. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Mentor

    Dec 30, 2002
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    I believe they have more of an obligation to store that weapon at home than a right to do so.
  3. The Lone Haranguer

    The Lone Haranguer Elder

    Jul 30, 2006
    Johnson City, TN
    I've never liked to hold up the Swiss model of an armed society as an example. Their guns are not privately owned but issued, they are restricted as to when they can use them, and are part of compulsory military service. All of these go against the grain of our concept of the "well-regulated militia."
  4. nalioth

    nalioth Mentor

    Jul 9, 2007
    Houston, Texas
    Before we get rolling on the wrong idea, the thread title is very misleading.

    It is not a "personal right" that is being discussed here, but military requirements. The Swiss military requires every soldier stay ready to roll as part of their "national guard" until they're old. Part of this readiness is keeping their rifle and and an ammo loadout at home with them.

    Military requirement, not personal right.
  5. The Lone Haranguer

    The Lone Haranguer Elder

    Jul 30, 2006
    Johnson City, TN
    What a surprise, just like ours. :rolleyes:
  6. walker944

    walker944 Active Member

    Jan 21, 2006
    Texas Hill Country
    I wonder how long it will be before all their little red army knifes are also confiscated and regulated? :cool:
  7. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Senior Elder

    Sep 8, 2005
    Not really. That's pretty much the nature of the militia in early America, when people in Washington were actually those who had debated, written and ratified the Constitution itself, and thus understood its original intent.
  8. Shung

    Shung Participating Member

    Jun 11, 2008
    Geneva, Switzerland
    well. You don't have the whole picture here.
    in most of our "states" estimations count more than 1 gun per ihnabitant.

    only 20% of our guns are issued to active milicians. 80% of remaining guns are privately owned, and we have no restriction of what we can own, and how many.

    only for full auto's and suppressors you need a special tax and permit.

    The bad point is that this referendum also aim at personal rights. They want, for example, to forbid "particulary dangerous" weapons, like pump action shotguns (nevermind they think semi auto or double barreled models are safer..) .

    Even worse, they want to introduce a "need" clause to get gun.
    Nowadays, everyone with no criminal record can get as many guns as he wants, and doesnt have to explain or prove why or for what he wants them.
    They try to divide us, stating that shooters, collectors and hunters rights will remain, but we all know how they work.. Divide and conquer.. So we won't let that happend. Right to guns must NOT be a privilege, It's a citizen right.

    For us, the fight has begun ! We are ready, and we fill fight as much as we can !

    If you want to join our "NRA" (Protell), fell free to do it :) (I joined NRA the 4th of November 2008)
  9. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Feb 16, 2003
    Ft. Worth
    I'm more interested in this here.

    I'd love to see the actual numbers on this. My gut says this is fabricated BS.

    The article says "The coalition estimates that 300 deaths annually are connected to gun use. "

    Notice they don't say how many of those guns are these military weapons here. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that it's a negligible amount, if any at all.

    Always the cries of "safety".

    This too interests me, everything I have seen shows the opposite:

    Would love to see this groups "facts" compared with other research around the world.

    Maybe they commissioned Brady to do the studies for them?
  10. Pulse

    Pulse Member

    Nov 27, 2008
    Zurich / CH
    that could very well be.
    the tone of the anti gun lobby has changed here in recent years.
    while they tried to argue for a very long time with facts and reason against Guns (no need for them, noone will attack switzerland, non sporting guns are not usefull for sporting purposes and so on), they changed to the emotion tone in recent years, just like the Brady campaign.

    while we could allways argue with 'them' when they laid out there facts and counter there reason with simple logic.
    now, it is hard to argue against a women that crys on stage because her Son commited suicide... and if you do, they look at you like you are a heartless maniac and you might very well causing more harm to the Cause then you would by simplying saying nothing.

    it realy is disturbing, but since they they want the military Rifles gone, the Schweizerischer Sch├╝tzenverband, a rather passive organisation otherwise, will jump in on this one because once the SIG rifles are gone, they will have no purpose anymore, for most people use that rifle as there firearm in the private recreational shooting.

    regardless, until our dear Democrates here show there final law, it is hard to guess wich way it will end.
  11. HeavenlySword

    HeavenlySword Member

    Nov 6, 2008
    New Yorkistan
    They say this as a psychological play. It implies because gun control DOES NOT increase suicides, it will decrease suicides.

    That is pure BS. After Canada enacted heavy duty gun control, total suicides actually went up slightly.
  12. Zoogster

    Zoogster Senior Member

    Oct 27, 2006
    Really? You think many people who would not have otherwise chosen to have any firearms, but have one present as a result of a military requirement will have used something else?

    I don't doubt things are greatly exaggerated. However when a firearm is available to someone who has already chosen to do something it is often the tool chosen for the task. Since many people with little interest in firearms still have thier military arms at thier homes it logicly means they will retrieve the only firearm they own for that purpose.
    So I would imagine the military weapon actualy is often the firearm used when firearms are used. Simply because it is the most widespread of owned firearms. It is also owned primarily by the age group suitable for service, which corrosponds with the age group most likely to commit violent crime.
    It may not be the most numerous of firrearms as Shung points out, but I would imagine it is the firearm most owned by the largest number of different individuals in that age bracket. Many of whom only have that firearm and no others.

    The real issue is that it shouldn't matter. I don't support new restrictions. And if they were not present most problems would have still existed.
    It would be unfortunate if one of the last examples of widespread ownership in the world ceases.

    When firearms are present they are often the tool used. When they are not present another tool is used.
    They are a very effective tool, and for the largest number of people both young and old, male and female. That is after all the entire purpose of protecting thier ownership. So statistics that show they are chosen for criminal actions means very little. Of course they are chosen for criminal action when they are available.
    They are also chosen for defensive use when they are available. When not available they are not.
    It would be like compiling statistics of how many people defend themselves with a firearm where firearms are rare. Then concluding firearms do not significantly help people defend themselves because those people were not defended by firearms. The very same form of illogical thought is behind it.
    The result means nothing.

    How many people who own a hammer use a wrench to hammer nails? How many people who own a lighter rub two sticks together? Do you use a knife to turn screws when you own a screwdriver?
    Would statistics be necessary?

Share This Page