Switzerland and guns at home

Glenn E. Meyer · February 14, 2011, 02:16 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/wo...html?ref=world

So by 57% Swiss voted to keep the guns at home. Take away points for us.

1. The urban/rural split
2. Concern about suicide and rampages - like here
3. The idea that army guns at home are unnecessary in their stable world.

However, given 43% want a ban isn't inspiring. But a win is a win.

Note, let's avoid cliches that the Swiss milita was the major deterrent to Nazi invasion - that wasn't true. It was more complex and there was a large amount of cooperation by the Swiss. Cliches don't support the RKBA if you know history.

BlueTrain · February 14, 2011, 02:23 PM

Comparisons are difficult but first off, the Swiss were neutral during WWII, not an easy status to maintain, I might add, but it meant they were not on our side.

Furthermore, their militia system was not a voluntary one. It was based on conscription. The Swiss had to be convinced that an armed struggle was worth it, if it came to that. But they had good leadership. These days, there is the feeling, supposedly, that there is less need for instant readiness, so who know what can happen.

Swiss firearms regulations are quite strict compared to the typical situation here, yet shooting is still a popular sport. However, it might appear that service calibers represent the bulk of the shooting that takes place there. I guess they don't dump boatloads of old Mosin-Nagants and Mausers on the Swiss.

LDSGJA · February 14, 2011, 02:24 PM

That's actually not a bad margin to win by.

However, its disturbing that urban areas around the world continually support gun control leading to confiscation - and the world is continually becoming more and more urbanized.

KyJim · February 14, 2011, 07:21 PM

Well, Switzerland wasn't really on the way to anything else that Hitler wanted to invade. Easier to get into France via Belgium than over the Alps.

Also, if the Nazis had invaded Switzerland, where were they going to store all that stolen gold and other loot?

spanishjames · February 14, 2011, 11:57 PM

Translates to: Weapons monopoly for criminals? NO
The campaigners behind the posters shown in the pictures argue that a ban or restrictive arms regulations grant a monopoly on firearms to criminals.

I'm used to seeing "Stop the Violence", and "Buy a gun for someone else, and you will do 10 years in jail" billboards, but rarely see pro-gun advertisements.
The posters are simple and to the point. More importantly they are logical, something difficult to argue with. Perhaps we as a shooting community, as well as the NRA, could adopt similar campaigns when opposing restrictive legislation. With people's attention spans being what they are, these types of colorful, graphic images with a slogan could be more beneficial to our cause.

The link is for the Disarmament Initiative. (pro-gun) I think the site is written in German, so I couldn't read much, other than use Google Translate for some of it. Those of you who can read German, have fun.
http://www.entwaffnungs-initiative-nein.ch/index.html

February 14, 2011, 02:16 PM	#1
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Switzerland and guns at home http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/wo...html?ref=world So by 57% Swiss voted to keep the guns at home. Take away points for us. 1. The urban/rural split 2. Concern about suicide and rampages - like here 3. The idea that army guns at home are unnecessary in their stable world. However, given 43% want a ban isn't inspiring. But a win is a win. Note, let's avoid cliches that the Swiss milita was the major deterrent to Nazi invasion - that wasn't true. It was more complex and there was a large amount of cooperation by the Swiss. Cliches don't support the RKBA if you know history. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 14, 2011, 02:23 PM	#2
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Comparisons are difficult but first off, the Swiss were neutral during WWII, not an easy status to maintain, I might add, but it meant they were not on our side. Furthermore, their militia system was not a voluntary one. It was based on conscription. The Swiss had to be convinced that an armed struggle was worth it, if it came to that. But they had good leadership. These days, there is the feeling, supposedly, that there is less need for instant readiness, so who know what can happen. Swiss firearms regulations are quite strict compared to the typical situation here, yet shooting is still a popular sport. However, it might appear that service calibers represent the bulk of the shooting that takes place there. I guess they don't dump boatloads of old Mosin-Nagants and Mausers on the Swiss. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

February 14, 2011, 02:24 PM	#3
LDSGJA Member Join Date: January 27, 2011 Location: Inland Empire, CA Posts: 70	That's actually not a bad margin to win by. However, its disturbing that urban areas around the world continually support gun control leading to confiscation - and the world is continually becoming more and more urbanized.

February 14, 2011, 07:21 PM	#4
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	Well, Switzerland wasn't really on the way to anything else that Hitler wanted to invade. Easier to get into France via Belgium than over the Alps. Also, if the Nazis had invaded Switzerland, where were they going to store all that stolen gold and other loot?