NationStates Jolt Archive

The land where large numbers of people own guns, but there's little gun crime; the darling of the pro-gun lobby, is considering tightening it's gun restrictions after growing concern about its rising gun crime problems.


Rise in gun crime forces Swiss to reconsider right to bear arms

Switzerland, an island of gun culture at the heart of Europe, is agonising over whether to introduce controls on possessing guns and ammunition as alarm spreads about the number of gun deaths in the country.

The latest incident occurred on the evening of Friday 13 April in the restaurant of a hotel in the northern city of Baden - three days before Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in the United States.

In the Baden eruption one man was killed and four wounded. A 26-year-old bank employee who is, like all Swiss men between 20 and 30, a member of the state militia, walked into the hotel and opened fire. Two brothers aged 15 and 16, sitting with their parents, were the first to be struck. The 16-year-old was critically wounded with two bullets in the stomach. The gunman then swung round and took aim at the bar, killing a 71-year-old man and wounding two others. He only stopped firing when he had used up all 20 rounds.

Apart from the number of rounds fired - Cho shot at least 170 times - the other difference is that the Swiss killer was armed by the state. His right to keep arms and ammunition at home, and to carry them freely, is defended as a key civil liberty and guarantee of the nation's independence.

But that argument, used for decades to justify the fact that more than two million arms are in private possession in this nation of 7.5 million people, is now under siege. Last month a senate committee voted overwhelmingly against the holding of ammunition at home. The issue must now be decided in parliament.

The worst massacre in recent Swiss history occurred in September 2001 when a man opened fire during a local government meeting in the town of Zug, south of Zurich, killing 15 people including himself.

Switzerland has no standing army, but all young men are obliged to train as soldiers and are called up for three or four weeks a year for abouta decade. Throughout this time they keep a rifle plus maybe a pistol at home, with ammunition. Once the call-up period ends they are not required to surrender them. The rationale is that the entire population is ready to spring to the nation's defence in the event of the French, Germans or Italians deciding to invade.

They call it the porcupine approach - millions of individuals ready to stiffen like spines if the motherland is threatened. The fact that all Switzerland's neighbours have been at peace for 60 years cuts no ice with the upholders of the policy.

"An army should be ready ... so soldiers should have weapons and ammunition at home," declares Ulrich Schluer, an MP who sits on a committee on security.

But the price of eternal vigilance is frequent funerals: in 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

Annabelle, a women's magazine, was enlisted in the campaign to ban the gun. "We don't know any women who want a weapon in the house," says Lisa Feldmann, the editor. "Women and the younger generation think this is crazy."

Source (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2499298.ece)

Switzerland has no standing army, but all young men are obliged to train as soldiers and are called up for three or four weeks a year for abouta decade. Throughout this time they keep a rifle plus maybe a pistol at home, with ammunition. Once the call-up period ends they are not required to surrender them. The rationale is that the entire population is ready to spring to the nation's defence in the event of the French, Germans or Italians deciding to invade.

Considering the number of guns per capita (fully automatic weapons, at that), aren't you surprised that there aren't far, far more deaths?

It's pretty small, numberwise.

On the other hand, I don't realistically see anyone invading Switzerland anytime soon.

Pro-gun posters across the internets weep at the loss of their trump card. Anti-gun posters are pleased with the new trump card added to their hand.

6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42Huh. Guess nobody using Switzerland in their gun debate arguments (on either side) actually ever bothered to check the numbers.

Considering the number of guns per capita (fully automatic weapons, at that), aren't you surprised that there aren't far, far more deaths?

Assumptions, assumptions....I haven't given any opinion on the article yet, why assume that I wouldn't be surprised that there aren't more deaths?

Huh. Guess nobody using Switzerland in their gun debate arguments (on either side) actually ever bothered to check the numbers.

This is true of most arguements here ;)

The "trump" will be wether crime is effected at all by these measures.

Huh. Guess nobody using Switzerland in their gun debate arguments (on either side) actually ever bothered to check the numbers.

Hmm... let's check the numbers.

300 million people in the US. 16,000 gun deaths per year.

5.33 gun deaths per 100,000 in the US.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

Wow. We're doing better than Switzerland.

but if they ban guns only the criminal class/E.U representatives/Jews after there golds will have guns!!!11 :D

Wow. We're doing better than Switzerland.

Now, isn't that interesting. By your own admission, the only country with worse rates than the US is the country where guns are more widespread than in the US. What a coincidence.

Now, isn't that interesting. By your own admission, the only country with worse rates than the US is the country where guns are more widespread than in the US. What a coincidence.

I was just thinking that.

A lovely case of hoisted on ones' own petard I think.

Now, isn't that interesting. By your own admission, the only country with worse rates than the US is the country where guns are more widespread than in the US. What a coincidence.

Actually, Brazil is worse than either. It's illegal to own a gun in Brazil.

I was just thinking that.

A lovely case of hoisted on ones' own petard I think.

heh! i love that phrase! the only other person i've ever known to use it is my dad though. you're not my dad are you?? o.0

heh! i love that phrase! the only other person i've ever known to use it is my dad though. you're not my dad are you?? o.0

Nicholas Parsons uses it on Just a Minute, also.

Actually, Brazil is worse than either. It's illegal to own a gun in Brazil.

All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state. The minimum age for ownership is 25 and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence. The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be around 17 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazil

Only Wiki but I'm sure it could be verified if you want.

Nicholas Parsons uses it on Just a Minute, also.

ah, i can breath again. not that i can imagine my dad using the name fartsniffage anyway, heh!

Actually, Brazil is worse than either. It's illegal to own a gun in Brazil.
Nope, it's legal at home (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3678624.stm), and a ban on guns was rejected in a referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum_concerning_the_prohibition_of_the_sale_of_firearms_and_ammunition).

heh! i love that phrase! the only other person i've ever known to use it is my dad though. you're not my dad are you?? o.0

Yeah it is a great phrase. Which reminds me, I used the word defenestrate in a relatively normal conversation today. For those who don't know defenestration is the act of throwing someone out a window.

Switzerland...is (one of) my ancestral homeland(s)!

But seriously. In the US, the gun death rate includes suicides, which account for over 50% of Americans who die by bullet wounds.

Switzerland...is (one of) my ancestral homeland(s)!

But seriously. In the US, the gun death rate includes suicides, which account for over 50% of Americans who die by bullet wounds.

But adding the numbers together makes them more dramatic. Of course IANSA also adds rocket lauchers and anti-personnel mines in their definition of "small arms".

And where has gun control (all other factors being equal) ever had a positive effect in terms of public safety?

I can't think of any instances. Nor have I seen it explained how exactly gun control can disarm criminals.

All I can see happening after the imposition of home possession of ammunition is the formation of a black market in ammunition, and this black market would also include military personnel as suppliers, and the advocates of gun control do not ever seek to address a black market, they simply congratulate themselves.

I am honestly aghast that anyone even considers gun control as a viable policy for increasing public safety, it simply doesn't work. All it does is disarm those who don't really need to be disarmed, while leaving armed those who ought to be disarmed.

Hmm... let's check the numbers.

300 million people in the US. 16,000 gun deaths per year.

5.33 gun deaths per 100,000 in the US.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

Wow. We're doing better than Switzerland.
1) There's something wrong with your numbers. According to your quote, it would be less than 16,000 gun murders per year - only 66% of those "16,137 nurders" were committed with firearms, per the quote. So the rate would be lower than 5.33.

2) However, there's something wrong with your numbers. The 6.2 per 100,000 people who died of gunshot wounds in Switzerland quoted in the OP's article include not just homicides - they also include suicides and accidents. According to various sources (like this (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html) and this (http://www.csgv.org/document.cfm?documentID=203) (and then I stopped because a third one crashed my computer, grrrr, but another one I saw put the number even higher, at a rate of 14.42 per 100,000)) the number of people dying of gunshot wounds in the US annually is about 30,000. That's equal to 10 per 100,000 people. Or, as per the OP's article, 9.42 per 100,000.

So, no, you're not doing better than Switzerland. You're both doing just as bad as the OP's article said.

Nope, it's legal at home (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3678624.stm), and a ban on guns was rejected in a referendum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum_concerning_the_prohibition_of_the_sale_of_firearms_and_ammunition).

Yeah, that's why you have these illegal guys running around with fully automatic submachineguns...

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/3480

Yeah, that's why you have these illegal guys running around with fully automatic submachineguns...

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/3480
Eh? I was correcting your facts, not attacking your stance on gun control.

That story is simply false. We all know that Brazil bans the carriage of firearms in public, therefore it does not happen. Gun laws disarm everyone, if laws say that guns cannot be carried into certain places, then no guns are ever carried into those places, because noone, not vigilantes, nor criminals, ever violates gun laws

are we really such a sensitive world now that we complain about people having guns. im reminded of a story of a kid in high school that had another kid get in some trouble at school because he had a picture of him holding a gun while on a hunting trip.

Guns are not that bad but there are far too many fruitcakes out there with em. And making it legal to own a .50 cal machine gun... Use? Self Defense argument kinda dissapears.

But seriously. In the US, the gun death rate includes suicides, which account for over 50% of Americans who die by bullet wounds.
In Switzerland, suicides are included in gun deaths statistics too. No surprise, as it is in fact statistics on gun deaths.

If you wish to look at the statistics for firearm-related murder...

The US: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people - i.e. 2,79 per 100,000
Switserland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people - i.e. 0,53 per 100.000

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

And where has gun control (all other factors being equal) ever had a positive effect in terms of public safety?
Japan? Europe?

I can't think of any instances. Nor have I seen it explained how exactly gun control can disarm criminals.
Makes it more difficult to get your hands on guns, and even having one is punishable. Seems to me that it could work to reduce the presence of guns...
1) There's something wrong with your numbers. According to your quote, it would be less than 16,000 gun murders per year - only 66% of those "16,137 nurders" were committed with firearms, per the quote. So the rate would be lower than 5.33.

2) However, there's something wrong with your numbers. The 6.2 per 100,000 people who died of gunshot wounds in Switzerland quoted in the OP's article include not just homicides - they also include suicides and accidents. According to various sources (like this (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html) and this (http://www.csgv.org/document.cfm?documentID=203) (and then I stopped because a third one crashed my computer, grrrr, but another one I saw put the number even higher, at a rate of 14.42 per 100,000)) the number of people dying of gunshot wounds in the US annually is about 30,000. That's equal to 10 per 100,000 people. Or, as per the OP's article, 9.42 per 100,000.

So, no, you're not doing better than Switzerland. You're both doing just as bad as the OP's article said.
Yup. Well done :) Oh and the numbers you refer to, 14.42 per 100,000, is probably US numbers from a few years back. It was 14.24 in 1994, but the numbers have gone down after peaking in the 90's.

Japan? Europe?

I said gun control with all other things equal. All other things are not equal in those cases, and there are jurisdictions with gun controls just as severe, or even more severe than Japan and Europe, with a lot more gun crime (Washington DC springs to mind)

Makes it more difficult to get your hands on guns, and even having one is punishable. Seems to me that it could work to reduce the presence of guns...

It does neither of those things.

It is entirely reasonable for the Swiss militia to keep rifles at barracks rather than in their homes. In the event that Switzerland's neighbours appear to be hostile, I don't doubt that the Swiss can re-institute the older policy. At the very least, every adult male is combat trained, and keeping strategic ammo dumps in hold-outs in the mountains could accomplish the same thing.

Very typical that it is a women's magazine which is largely behind this.

Call back when the legislation does something positive, then perhaps we'll entertain all this talk about "trump cards" and whatnot.

Very typical that it is a women's magazine which is largely behind this.
The mind is boggled by the sheer stupidity.

I don't even want to get my hands dirty by delving further into what reasoning you're making here, I'll just point out the obvious - namely that apparently you didn't read the article:

Last month a senate committee voted overwhelmingly against the holding of ammunition at home. The issue must now be decided in parliament.
Annabelle, a women's magazine, was enlisted in the campaign to ban the gun.

The mind is boggled by the sheer stupidity.

I don't even want to get my hands dirty by delving further into what reasoning you're making here, I'll just point out the obvious - namely that apparently you didn't read the article:

I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that he was joking.

I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that he was joking.
Unfortunately, he wasn't.

I said gun control with all other things equal. All other things are not equal in those cases, and there are jurisdictions with gun controls just as severe, or even more severe than Japan and Europe, with a lot more gun crime (Washington DC springs to mind)
Ah, I forgot; "With all other things being equal" means "In light of these considerations that I've clearly defined in my mind, and ignoring some other unspoken factors too". My mistake.

It does neither of those things.
All other factors being equal, it actually does.

Unfortunately, he wasn't.

Meh. I shouldn't be surprised.

"We don't know any women who want a weapon in the house," says Lisa Feldmann, the editor. "Women and the younger generation think this is crazy."


It isn't a coincidence that it is women who are largely anti-gun in Switzerland. The same is true here in the US. The largest anti-gun-rights group here, the Brady Bunch, is run by Sarah Brady. See also the League of Women Voters and the Million Mom March.

The reason anti-gun arguments are so often emotional, so often for the children, &c, is that emotional women are the motivation for them.

Actually, Brazil is worse than either. It's illegal to own a gun in Brazil.

Here in Brazil, more than 48 people die daily because of guns.

And its much harder to get them compared to the US. No one can get 9mm. The max a civilian can have is a 38 or 22.

Yet the bandits have way more guns than the regular people. A few years ago we had a voting to say wheter we desired to totaly ban guns or not.

Of course, we choosed not to, since if it had become even harder to get guns, the only ones having it would be the bandits.

Rio de Janeiro Body Count:

http://www.riobodycount.com.br/

828 dead and 454 wounded since FEBRUARY 1st. In the city alone.

Fortunaly the entire country isnt like that, its the most violent city here.

All other factors being equal, it actually does.

How so, for one thing, we are discussing people who are already living outside the law, or those prepared to do business with such people. While gun laws will restrict the legitimate gun trade, they cannot restrict the illigitimate trade.

They cannot deal with some of the key sources of that trade such as smuggling, theft, and corruption (of police, and military personnel, as well employees of private firms that carry weapons such as security companies).

Australia's gun laws didn't stop corrupt officers selling rocket launchers (should go without saying that an Australian civilian CANNOT legally own operating rocket launchers) to illegal arms dealers, nor would they have stopped those dealers in turn selling to end users, (allegedly bikies and terrorists, but you can put your own villians in their place)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21508210-5001561,00.html

The reason anti-gun arguments are so often emotional, so often for the children, &c, is that emotional women are the motivation for them.

Hmm, and it is irrational for women to oppose civilian ownership of firearms, as this is precisely what will give women an advantage in fighting criminals, or deterring them.

And its much harder to get them compared to the US. No one can get 9mm. The max a civilian can have is a 38 or 22.

Would that be the rather common (and rather stupid) Latin American law against owning military caliber ammunition?

Would that be the rather common (and rather stupid) Latin American law against owning military caliber ammunition?

No, that law is just saying that civilians are only alowed to have guns to protect themselves. And that a 38 is good enough for that. If you want to hunt, use a 22 or 38.

Now, you cant even carry concealed guns outside of your home. If you have a permit, you can only store the gun inside your house. You cant take it anywhere else. The only ones that can have better weapons and carry them around are security personel, cops, military and other specific groups.

Trust me, you cant have an AK47 or a .50 Browning in your backyard like people do in the US.

Guns are not that bad but there are far too many fruitcakes out there with em. And making it legal to own a .50 cal machine gun... Use? Self Defense argument kinda dissapears.


Since the price of full auto firearms is so high (due to the relative rarity of them, versus the semi versions), people typically own full auto firearms for things like this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6827679956771459066&q=.50+caliber+machine+gun

Here's a country where handguns are illegal...


but a teenage kid can still get one...

they must have a cheap street price....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/6617697.stm

I believe Switzerland has a very much a good direct/participatory democracy going, not like our representative ones that we pretend are actually democratic, I also believe in Switzerland, that any citizens, as long as they can firstly come up with 100,000 votes (dont quote me on this) can motion a plebiscite.