Two out of three Swiss support the EU Gun Ban, referendum against it likely to fail (poll)

[wyk]

It’s unfortunately true that the chances of success for this referendum is rather slim. One of my Swiss friends who is a member of Pro-Tell told me most referendums do not succeed statistically speaking and with the antis using the access to Schengen card, it is an uphill battle. But publicly the fight is on and they will still do their best against the odds.

 

[CLP]

Swixit.

Switzerland isn't an EU member.

 

[Snejdarek]

Switzerland isn't an EU member.

No, but they got that deal of "taxation without representation".

 

[Spats McGee]

As much as I like the Europeans (& I really do), I have often found them to be much more 'collectively oriented' than Americans. They tend to think more in terms of 'what X means for our society' than 'what X means for me.' IMHO. YMMV.

 

[rpenmanparker]

As much as I like the Europeans (& I really do), I have often found them to be much more 'collectively oriented' than Americans. They tend to think more in terms of 'what X means for our society' than 'what X means for me.' IMHO. YMMV.

Yes, that's right. The folks who couldn't get along in that environment for whatever reason were some of the ones who came to America to get away from it.

 

[crestoncowboy]

A few thousand years of being ruled over by kings and queens who changed law on a whim will cause that in people.

 

[rpenmanparker]

A few thousand years of being ruled over by kings and queens who changed law on a whim will cause that in people.

Yes, but don't forget that ruling was one of the "natural rights" of those kings and queens. "Everyone knew" that. We have to be careful when we ascribe natural rights.

 

[AlexanderA]

As much as I like the Europeans (& I really do), I have often found them to be much more 'collectively oriented' than Americans. They tend to think more in terms of 'what X means for our society' than 'what X means for me.' IMHO. YMMV.

You can't say that about the Italians, or the Greeks (for example). They'll look out for themselves, and their families, even though society goes to hell in a handbasket. This is why things like tax evasion (and disregard of the gun laws) are endemic in those countries. It's hard to generalize about the Europeans.

Americans may not be collectivist, but they're certainly more law-abiding than the typical southern European.

 

[Walkalong]

Pollsters aren’t stupid.

No, but they are often biased.

 

[rpenmanparker]

No, but they are often biased.

You don’t really know that. Your own beliefs are coloring your opinion. I find no particular bias either way from pollsters of any stripe. It is easier to believe in bias then to accept poll results you wish weren’t true. Accepting that a poll is likely representative of the sample it was nominally taken from doesn’t mean you have to agree with the majority opinion.

 

[GEM]

Having studied survey research, it is well known that the context and wording of a question can pull the answer in a certain fashion.

There are pollsters who work for a cause on a PR level to produce the result wanted and a deeper level of pollsters who use correct methodologies to actual determine opinions.

To return to this issue - the big problem for gun rights is that:

1. Rampages provide vivid instances of the misuse of firearms
2. The general population may not see the utility of people owning the higher capacity guns. They see the utility of guns that would be amenable for SD in a less intensive interaction. The defense against tyranny does not appeal to the general public. The defense against invasion is laughable in the USA. I imagine in Switzerland, the stabilization of Europe and end of the Cold War reduces the desire for the civilian militia model with such available access to the long arms. The threat of a resurgent Russia doesn't seem that real or imminent. The Swiss are engaging in a glacial and slow process to re-equip a fairly minimal air force, for example. The voters have turned down other re-equipment schemes.
3. The gun world (esp. in the USA) has been terrible in messaging outside of cliches for the already committed choir. States that are gun states will continue to support and strengthen laws but erosion is occurring as the need for the higher capacity guns is not being made for the general public in a manner that counters the fear of rampages.

God given natural rights - no persuasive effects outside of the gun world. Self-defense - five in enough, 3,3,3, rack the shotgun, blah, blah - no need for a EBR. Shall not be infringed - bellow it and then move on. Most BOR have constraints - how about that.
Stop the socialist wave - yep, use your AR to stop free college, cancer producing wind mills and Medicare for all.

Wonder why even past .pro-gun states can erode - such as Colorado, Florida, VT, WA , etc. ? Not a convincing message.

The defense against tyranny should be a strong message along with personal defense in this age of increasing racism. However, most gun rights groups and supposed pro gun politicians won't go there for specific funding raising target demographics.

There is no incentive for most politicians to come up definitive solutions for gun rights or for the commerically oriented gun rights organizations. A win kills your finances. I am too young to be this cynical, as someone said. 72 is the new 70.

 

[rpenmanparker]

You hit the nail pretty squarely on the head.

 

[Snejdarek]

Self-defense

That doesn't exist in anyone's mind in Europe when it comes to firearms, with few exceptions (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Baltics).

Even saying the word self defense and firearm in one sentence would mark you as a weirdo in countries like Germany or Sweden, not to mention UK.

 

[Swifty Morgan]

The irresponsible commit crimes, so disarm the innocent.

 

[rpenmanparker]

The irresponsible commit crimes, so disarm the innocent.

Until the crime is committed, there is no apparent difference between the two. Thinking absolutely no guns, no gun violence is completely sensible and quite correct even if you extend it to war. It is the impossibility of reaching the no guns state that the do-gooder doesn’t understand.

 

[Tommygunn]

Until the crime is committed, there is no apparent difference between the two. Thinking absolutely no guns, no gun violence is completely sensible and quite correct even if you extend it to war. It is the impossibility of reaching the no guns state that the do-gooder doesn’t understand.

I don't think it's that simple. Humans were murdering, thieving, warring, and just generally being evil long before firearms were developed.
The do-gooders don't seem to understand that the fault lies not in our weapons, but in ourselves.

 

[rpenmanparker]

I don't think it's that simple. Humans were murdering, thieving, warring, and just generally being evil long before firearms were developed.
The do-gooders don't seem to understand that the fault lies not in our weapons, but in ourselves.

If you read my post again, you might see that I said it wasn’t that simple. I said that the utopian state is impossible, just in different words. But it is natural to think as the antis do. No guns means no gun violence. What could be better than that? But impossible. Same thing as a war on poverty. It is an impossible task.

 

[entropy]

Indeed; Utopia is impossible due to human nature. It doesn't take a PhD in philosophy to see that, merely an analytical mind.

 

[JeffG]

The lack of self preservation instincts with some people is beyond comprehension.

 

[rpenmanparker]

The lack of self preservation instincts with some people is beyond comprehension.

Well, the level of self-preservation response in many people is proportional to the threat level. No threats experienced: no conditioned responses. Understandable.

 

[entropy]

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-George Santayana

 

[GEM]

Can we move beyond virtue signaling cliches?

The issue is the Swiss situation.

 

[Spats McGee]

You can't say that about the Italians, or the Greeks (for example). They'll look out for themselves, and their families, even though society goes to hell in a handbasket. This is why things like tax evasion (and disregard of the gun laws) are endemic in those countries. It's hard to generalize about the Europeans.

Americans may not be collectivist, but they're certainly more law-abiding than the typical southern European.

I'll grant you that my experience with the Europeans is overwhelmingly from living among the Germans, but my statement holds true for the (few) southern Europeans that I have known.

 

[mdauben]

Thinking absolutely no guns, no gun violence is completely sensible and quite correct even if you extend it to war. It is the impossibility of reaching the no guns state that the do-gooder doesn’t understand.

The problem is equating "no gun violence" with "no violence". The reports of "knife violence" in places like China and the UK is just one example of the fallacy of the no-guns-no-violence viewpoint.

 

[Swifty Morgan]

Until the crime is committed, there is no
apparent difference between the two.

It's very easy to identify segments of society, and often, individuals, who are likely to misuse guns, and we can also identify responsible people fairly well. For example, carry permit holders have proven extremely unlikely to commit gun crimes. We can't identify every nut in advance, and it would be stupid to think we ever will, but most violent criminals are known jerks.

Here is an obvious premise of my comment: an armed citizenry is very helpful to a nation, and disarming responsible people on a wide scale, while leaving the lawless armed, is a dumb idea that weakens countries. The risk that one or two Swiss citizens might shoot a few, or even a few dozen, people may be acceptable, given the evils that will result from disarmament.

Here in the US, we have sent countless young men to die in war to protect our civil rights, yet we are unwilling to accept the risk of a relatively small number of civilian casualties as a by-product of preserving our civil right to be armed. That's very strange. We let people drive, even for pleasure, even though we know thousands will be killed or disabled in accidents every year, and driving is a mere privilege, not a right. People who make gun laws should weigh the pros and cons in an intelligent manner instead of reacting to a few gun deaths like scared chickens in a hailstorm.

Thinking absolutely no guns, no gun violence is completely sensible and quite correct even if you extend it to war. It is the impossibility of reaching the no guns state that the do-gooder doesn’t understand.

Holding "gun violence" out as the problem is a fundamental error. "Violence" is the problem, and we don't need guns to commit acts of violence. The Swiss are highly educated, very disciplined, and affluent. There are more efficient tools of destruction than guns, and if they want to, Swiss criminals will find and use them.

An intelligent person who plots to hurt others won't use a gun. Look what you can do with a pressure cooker.