Move to ban rifles at home gathers pace

[[R_H]]

Swissinfo

Anti-gun supporters have collected enough signatures to force a nationwide vote on banning more than one million military weapons from Swiss households.

Guns are stored in homes under Switzerland's militia system, but opponents say the practice is too dangerous, pointing to deaths and domestic violence cases involving army weapons.

The people's initiative, launched by the centre-left Social Democratic Party and a number of pacifist organisations, was handed in to the Swiss chancellery in the capital, Bern, on Monday.

It calls for army weapons to remain in barracks, a national gun register, a ban on private individuals buying or owning particularly dangerous guns such as automatic weapons and pump-action shotguns and tighter controls on firearm carriers.

According to the initiative's committee, around 2.3 million weapons are currently in circulation Switzerland, of which a tenth belong to soldiers.

Keeping military firearms at home is a long-standing tradition for the militia army, which is supposed to be ready for a call to arms in times of crisis. However, most active members are not allowed to store munitions.
Safety risk

The initiative's supporters argue that the practice is a safety risk. Experts claim that around 300 deaths each year are caused by army weapons, which also play a role in domestic violence.

Social Democrat parliamentarian Chantal Galladé said the proposal created more security and prevented tragic deaths. "Guns don't belong in people's bedrooms or unsecured cellars," she said.

Green parliamentarian Josef Lang pointed to the 2001 case of a gunman who shot and killed 14 people in Zug's cantonal parliament with a pump-action gun. These had to be banned, he said.

"The pump-action shotgun is a weapon for madmen and killers," Lang said.

For Reto Moosmann from the pacifist organisation Group for Switzerland without an Army the compromise of not keeping munitions at home does not go far enough. Bullets could be bought in gun shops, he said.

Many doctors also support the initiative, pointing to suicide risks, particularly among young men.

Weakening the country

However, those in favour of keeping weapons at home argue that decommissioning is a weakening of Swiss security and a vote of no confidence in soldiers. The new defence minister, Ueli Maurer, has already indicated that he will fight attempts to take firearms out of the home.

The Swiss Shooting Sports Association, representing 250,000 members, said in a statement that the initiative would harm gun sports and hunting.

"The association calls on the public to reject the initiative. Accepting it won't stop abuses and won't solve the safety issues to the extent the initiative supporters would make you believe," it said.

The association added that respecting the revised law were more important than new legislation and bans.

Galladé told swissinfo that the initiative was not aimed at punishing those who acted responsibly with guns and that hunters should be able to keep their weapons at home.

She said that opponents' fears over losing their guns were largely unfounded. "We don't want to take anything away from anybody, we just want to prevent unnecessary deaths," said Galladé.
Tide turning?

All able-bodied Swiss men aged 20-30 are conscripted for around three months and are issued with a rifle. After initial training they are required to do up to four weeks of army service a year until they have served 260 days or reached the age of 34.

Debate has been raging on what should be done with these weapons since the shock of the Zug killings.

Further fuel was added when the husband of former women's ski champion Corinne Rey-Bellet killed her and her brother with his army pistol in 2006.

A security study published last year suggested that support for keeping weapons at home was falling. It found that just 34 per cent of the population was in favour, compared with 57 per cent in 1989. Women and young people were particularly against the practice.

It calls for army weapons to remain in barracks, a national gun register, a ban on private individuals buying or owning particularly dangerous guns such as automatic weapons and pump-action shotguns and tighter controls on firearm carriers.

Yeah...we already have what amounts to a gun registry, which is done through the Kantons though, in addition to that, Switzerland's entry into Schengen requires a permit for the purchase of ammunition (etc).

Social Democrat parliamentarian Chantal Galladé said the proposal created more security and prevented tragic deaths. "Guns don't belong in people's bedrooms or unsecured cellars," she said.



Green parliamentarian Josef Lang pointed to the 2001 case of a gunman who shot and killed 14 people in Zug's cantonal parliament with a pump-action gun. These had to be banned, he said.

"The pump-action shotgun is a weapon for madmen and killers," Lang said.

Uhuh, and everyone who's named Josef is either an incestuous rapist or a Nazi. Ad hominems ahoy!

[Mr Bean]

So I guess Automatic shotguns are the weapons of Peace-loving Hippies and Saints?
Good to know
Don't do it Switzerland. You'll make the NRA cry, you are the shining city on the hill for them. What Charlton Heston dreamed he could someday bring to America.
Will you crush his dreams?

Besides I one day hope to visit Switzerland for a Schützenfest and see what is so often described as hordes of Swiss citizens toting enough fire-power to make a solid gun nut fall to his knees and weep as they pass smiling police men on their way to the range to practice the week before the festival.

[Sephirius]

I.. I think I just burst some blood vessels from the rage and shock.

[Zixinus]

This is typical: gun-related deaths = BAN ALL GUNS!

Although, 300 deaths a year appear to me as a bit alarming.

What I'd like to know from Swiss members is what's the attitude towards gun ownership and how reasonable are the request (stupid agenda-fuelled shock statements aside) of this woman in question?

A secure storage for example, is not completely unreasonable and there are several countries where this is the norm as it is.

EDIT:

"The pump-action shotgun is a weapon for madmen and killers," Lang said.

Oh dear me, here I thought it was a weapon for hunters and policeman, all little to none serious military application.

[bobalot]

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal. You don't need military grade guns for hunting.

[Rogue 9]

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal. You don't need military grade guns for hunting.

I have to ask. Did you even read the article?

[[R_H]]

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal. You don't need military grade guns for hunting.

It's got nothing to do with "military grade" guns for hunting.

Most weapons already require a permit each and each permit is only available through the Kantonspolizei. Where's the need for a centralized registry.

BTW, "military grade" guns can be used for hunting, for example old surplus weapons.

[NoXion]

Aren't certain types of hunting rifle actually more powerful than military weapons? Anything designed to stop big game would almost certainly ruin the day of a puny human.

[Coyote]

Swissinfo

Anti-gun supporters have collected enough signatures to force a nationwide vote on banning more than one million military weapons from Swiss households.

...The people's initiative, launched by the centre-left Social Democratic Party and a number of pacifist organisations, was handed in to the Swiss chancellery in the capital, Bern, on Monday.

"Pacifist organizations"-- the article doesn't seem to go into detail, but there are such people who probably would push for total de-militarization and even be willing to disarm the police because they think that the mere existence of weapons escalates conflict.

It calls for army weapons to remain in barracks, a national gun register, a ban on private individuals buying or owning particularly dangerous guns such as automatic weapons and pump-action shotguns and tighter controls on firearm carriers.

Aside from the "storage in Army barracks" part, I thought that the Swiss already had registry and liscencing. And considering "automatic weapons" to any "more dangerous" than any other weapons shows that they know precious little about the nature of the firearms in question. Automatic weapons rarely do much more than burn through a lot of ammo really quickly while keeping the other side pinned down and too fearful to move-- while people with, I dunno, "less dangerous" weapons maneuver on the victims to kill them with "mere rifles".

People that do not know what the fuck they are talking about should not place themselves in a position to make gun laws.

According to the initiative's committee, around 2.3 million weapons are currently in circulation Switzerland, of which a tenth belong to soldiers.

I do not like the stated figure of "300 deaths a year" (if that's true, there's almost a death a day with weekends off or something) but when you compare the population density and correlating density of firearms deaths, that actually seems to work out to a less than expected number of deaths.

The initiative's supporters argue that the practice is a safety risk. Experts claim that around 300 deaths each year are caused by army weapons, which also play a role in domestic violence.

There are 300 deaths a year from military grade weapons... but they don't break down the deaths by type. It is left open to imply that these are all murders from domestic violence, but are other deaths included in the figure? Deaths from accident/ clumsiness? Deaths from legitimate, legal self-defense? They need to flesh this out more.

Social Democrat parliamentarian Chantal Galladé said the proposal created more security and prevented tragic deaths. "Guns don't belong in people's bedrooms or unsecured cellars," she said.

Green parliamentarian Josef Lang pointed to the 2001 case of a gunman who shot and killed 14 people in Zug's cantonal parliament with a pump-action gun. These had to be banned, he said.

"The pump-action shotgun is a weapon for madmen and killers," Lang said.

Typical uneducated alarmist pap.

For Reto Moosmann from the pacifist organisation Group for Switzerland without an Army the compromise of not keeping munitions at home does not go far enough. Bullets could be bought in gun shops, he said.

Note emphasis. Whackaloon group, ahoy.

Many doctors also support the initiative, pointing to suicide risks, particularly among young men.

Stupid. A truly determined suicide will not be deterred by the lack of a gun. Are they going to also ban ropes, engines in garages, gas ovens, and sleeping pills, too?

...Galladé told swissinfo that the initiative was not aimed at punishing those who acted responsibly with guns and that hunters should be able to keep their weapons at home.

She said that opponents' fears over losing their guns were largely unfounded. "We don't want to take anything away from anybody, we just want to prevent unnecessary deaths," said Galladé.

This completely contradicts what they said earlier in the article...

All able-bodied Swiss men aged 20-30 are conscripted for around three months and are issued with a rifle. After initial training they are required to do up to four weeks of army service a year until they have served 260 days or reached the age of 34.

[/quote]

Probably the problems that need ot be addressed are problems with responsibility & training, rather than just closing eyes, plugging ears, and wishing all the evil spirits away.

Typical hoplophobes.

[General Zod]

Aren't certain types of hunting rifle actually more powerful than military weapons? Anything designed to stop big game would almost certainly ruin the day of a puny human.

Some rifles, sure. It's why the assault weapon ban in the US is generally considered a joke, given the criteria they use to define assault weapons. Although most hunting rifles have a much lower rate of fire than your typical military rifle afaik. So you'd be less likely to go through a mall or a bank and mow down a crowd of people with a hunting rifle than with something that offered burst fire or full auto options.

[Ryan Thunder]

BTW, "military grade" guns can be used for hunting, for example old surplus weapons.

Nice of you to totally miss his point; You don't need to go hunting with submachine guns, carbines, or assault rifles. Hell, even a semi-automatic rifle pushes my credulity.

Aren't certain types of hunting rifle actually more powerful than military weapons? Anything designed to stop big game would almost certainly ruin the day of a puny human.

Some rifles, sure. It's why the assault weapon ban in the US is generally considered a joke, given the criteria they use to define assault weapons. Although most hunting rifles have a much lower rate of fire than your typical military rifle afaik. So you'd be less likely to go through a mall or a bank and mow down a crowd of people with a hunting rifle than with something that offered burst fire or full auto options.

Which is pretty much the point of something like an assault weapons ban, isn't it? Reduce the ease with which one can murder multiple persons.

[Mr Bean]

Which is pretty much the point of something like an assault weapons ban, isn't it? Reduce the ease with which one can murder multiple persons.

Two things
Three words
1. Clock-Tower Sniper
If people want to kill large numbers of people quickly, they will find a way. Two weeks and the internet and you can build yourself a nice sized bomb. A quick visit to home Depot and you have dozens of way of poisoning dozens. Hell if you wanted any gas station, Matches and gasoline, arson can kill hundreds as in the club fires a few years back.
2. The assault weapons ban does no such thing since the reason it bans weapons is based off cosmetics. Take any one of a dozen M-16 knock-off. It's legal under the assault weapons ban unless it has certain features like a bayonet slug in which case it's illegal because that's one of the criteria of the "Assault weapons" ban which was written by people it seems did not know a bipod from a standard rail lug. They did not simply ban all automatic weapons they banned many other things that made no sense which is why I'm glad the ban lapsed. It was written by people who look at a Mac-10, or a M1 Carbine, or a M1A1 Thompson and call all of them "machine guns". I've seen once before they even called Garad's "Machine guns".

[[R_H]]

This is typical: gun-related deaths = BAN ALL GUNS!

Although, 300 deaths a year appear to me as a bit alarming.

What I'd like to know from Swiss members is what's the attitude towards gun ownership and how reasonable are the request (stupid agenda-fuelled shock statements aside) of this woman in question?

A secure storage for example, is not completely unreasonable and there are several countries where this is the norm as it is.

The 300 deaths are mostly suicides with army weapons, and most gun crime in domestic situations is with army weapons, the rest of gun crime is with illegal weapons. In 2006 there were 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). The number of aggravated assaults due to firearms has declined since the 90s.

[Ryan Thunder]

1. Clock-Tower Sniper

Yeah, how often do we get one of those again as opposed to some retard who thinks he's rambo and wants to rob a bank?

2. The assult weapons ban does no such thing since the reason it bans weapons is based off cosmetics. Take any one of a dozen M-16 knock-off. It's legal under the assault weapons ban unless it has certain features like a bayonet slug in which case it's illegal because that's one of the criteria of the "Assault weapons" ban which was written by people it seems did not know a bipod from a standard rail lug.

These laws are written by retards. But obviously, only the finest retards the Americans have to offer...

[Mr Bean]

Yeah, how often do we get one of those again as opposed to some retard who thinks he's rambo and wants to rob a bank?

Well if I limited myself to people who shot people from Clock-Towers then two. But if I branch it out I can find five examples of snipers going nuts and shooting up the place. Three related to school shootings.

If I wanted to check bank robberies with automatic weapons the only two I can find are a string of DC hold-ups with AK-47's and the famous 1997 CA massive shoot-up with the fellows who robbed the bank swathed in body armored. Other than that people die far... far... FAR more often to hand-guns then they do to assault rifles, shot-guns, high powered hunting rifles or actual light machine guns, I can't ever recall someone robbing anyone with a Browning .50cal so no heavy machine guns thieving either.

[[R_H]]

BTW, "military grade" guns can be used for hunting, for example old surplus weapons.

Nice of you to totally miss his point; You don't need to go hunting with submachine guns, carbines, or assault rifles. Hell, even a semi-automatic rifle pushes my credulity.

Since when is military grade = SMGs/carbines/assault rifles?

Besides, if you go hunting any of the common game here (in my area it's wild pig) you wouldn't use an SMG or an assault rifle, you'd use something like a K-31 or a Stgw57 (both are chambered for 7.5x55mm). They're surplus weapons, one is a straight pull bolt action with a five round internal magazine, while the other is a semi-automatic battle rifle that uses twenty round magazines. Both are "military grade", whatever the hell that means. What if you're out hunting wild pig, which is potentially dangerous, and suddenly you come across one. If you have a semi-automatic weapon, you have a quick second shot available, which may be the difference between bacon, or an injured/dead person. I don't know about you, but that's a credible use for semi-automatic capability.

[Sea Skimmer]

If I wanted to check bank robberies with automatic weapons the only two I can find are a string of DC hold-ups with AK-47's and the famous 1997 CA massive shoot-up with the fellows who robbed the bank swathed in body armored. Other than that people die far... far... FAR more often to hand-guns then they do to assault rifles, shot-guns, high powered hunting rifles or actual light machine guns, I can't ever recall someone robbing anyone with a Browning .50cal so no heavy machine guns thieving either.

The North Hollywood shootout involved illegally modified guns too, and the same modifications could have been done to AK which were legal under the assault weapon ban anyway. If the fuckers had semi auto they might have aimed and actually killed someone too, and if the LAPD had any rifles, the shootout would have been over in two minutes anyway.

I’ve never heard of .50cal used in crime unless you count the Branch Davidian who used one for a brief period during the siege, but hit nothing. The cheapest a .50cal comes is what, 2 grand? Not likely to be used. However as I recall a group in Canada in the 1960s actually had a Finnish Lahti L-39 20mm anti tank rifle and used it to rob a couple armored cars. You could buy that sucker through the mail back then though.

[Ryan Thunder]

Yeah, how often do we get one of those again as opposed to some retard who thinks he's rambo and wants to rob a bank?

Well if I limited myself to people who shot people from Clock-Towers then two. But if I branch it out I can find five examples of snipers going nuts and shooting up the place. Three related to school shootings.

If I wanted to check bank robberies with automatic weapons the only two I can find are a string of DC hold-ups with AK-47's and the famous 1997 CA massive shoot-up with the fellows who robbed the bank swathed in body armored.

It's funny, you know, for some reason I thought they were more common.

Other than that people die far... far... FAR more often to hand-guns then they do to assault rifles, shot-guns, high powered hunting rifles or actual light machine guns, I can't ever recall someone robbing anyone with a Browning .50cal so no heavy machine guns thieving either.

Well yes, pistols are pretty deadly. But these Americans seem to have this wierd fixation on owning out-and-out weapons, so I doubt you'll get rid of those.

On the other hand its probably just a cost/concealment thing. The criminals buy what's cheapest and easiest to hide, which is why we don't see them running around with assault rifles and what not.

Since when is military grade = SMGs/carbines/assault rifles?

Since we handed them out to footsoldiers as the defacto weapon of choice for infantry warfare, to put it bluntly.

[Zixinus]

Aren't certain types of hunting rifle actually more powerful than military weapons? Anything designed to stop big game would almost certainly ruin the day of a puny human.

Yes, although only in certain aspects.

Military-grade weapons have to be tough against elements and have longer range, as well as operable when fired from a dirty weapon. This is less of a problem with hunting rifles, where the hunter can afford to regularly clean his weapon and keep his ammunition in safe location, as well that he will use it quickly enough (say, in a few months as opposed to decades).

Of course, this applies only to weapons firing big-game hunting weapons.

Also, military weapons have to deal with armour, thus have to be able to penetrate armour. A regular 5.56 NATO will penetrate trough most but the heaviest of body armour and will require quite a few inches of steel to stop.

Big game hunting weapons are usually designed to expand, to cause as large wound channel as possible. Penetration is less of an issue.

There is also the issue that military ammunition is often intended to fire in automatic fire while this is ridiculous idea for hunting. Automatic fire capacity has its own drawbacks when it comes to ammunition design.

There is a list of whole other criteria for civilian vs military application.

Just keep in mind that nothing is set in stone. The 7.62 NATO (if I recall the size right) could easily be used for hunting with ease and buckshot is still lethal enough for military use against unarmoured fighters.

Many civilian rifles are pattered after old WW1 or even WW2-styled military rifles. There are many rifles that are basically a semi-automatic version of their fully-automatic military cousin. Example would be the FN F2000 that has a FS2000 variant, intended for civilian shooters. There are more, but its late.

Lines are not very clear, as you can see. The only good rule of thumb is that anything with automatic fire capability is bound to be military-grade.

Which is pretty much the point of something like an assault weapons ban, isn't it? Reduce the ease with which one can murder multiple persons.

Except the Assault Rifle Ban didn't ban assault rifles, it only banned certain semi-cosmetic features. Rather than banning weapon-defining mechanism or the capacity of automatic fire, they banned things like pistol grips or fire mode selectors (but not actual firing modes) and other scaring-looking but non-defining features.

In short, it was the laws passed by politicians pandering hysteria they helped create, so they'd secure a voting base for themselves, apathetic to the effects of those laws. Democracy can be wonderful at times.

If I recall correctly, automatic weapons (rifles or otherwise) are already banned for civilan use in the USA, prior to the ARB. Unless you are a police officer or have some kind of special permit. People from the USA may enlighten me on this issue. I do recall one member posting pictures of an M16 that was modified to accommodate the ARB without losing any of its real lethality.

[General Zod]

On the other hand its probably just a cost/concealment thing. The criminals buy what's cheapest and easiest to hide, which is why we don't see them running around with assault rifles and what not.

A pump-action shotgun can be just as deadly as a semi automatic rifle, really. Saw off the barrel, and bam. Easy concealment. Oh yeah, and I think you can pick up a cheap one for a couple hundred bucks at Walmart, no background check needed. (Though that may have changed the last I bothered checking).

[Coyote]

The biggest body count for criminal violence is still by explosives-- Tim McVeigh, and before him there was a guy that fire-bombed a nightclub because his ex-girlfriend was in the club and wanted to "get her".

The AWB in the US was completely arbitrary, and was centered around what guns "looked scary" to people who know nothing about guns. For example, having a bayonet lug and having a sling carry-- things that had never factored into any of the few 'assault-style' weapons deaths. Other changes made were that guns were not allowed to be sold if they had a "flash hider" or "flash suppressor" (which did little to actually reduce muzzle flash). They flash hiders were replaced with recoil compensators which, to everyone's surprise, actually made the weapons easier to handle and keep them stable. Thanks, hoplophobes!

From RH's numbers on gun deaths in Switzerland being mostly suicides, I have a feeling that this proposed law has little to do with eliminating unecessary deaths (they'd be looking at what in society is causing people to kill themselves) and more to do with having an axe to grind with the concept of firearms ownership. This is like having militant vegans determine policy on hamburgers.

[[R_H]]

Since when is military grade = SMGs/carbines/assault rifles?

Since we handed them out to footsoldiers as the defacto weapon of choice for infantry warfare, to put it bluntly.

Then they're military issue. BTW, are you going to address the rest of my post?

[Coyote]

The 300 deaths are mostly suicides with army weapons, and most gun crime in domestic situations is with army weapons

Any stats on the exact breakdown? Like 200 suicides, 100 domestics, etc?

...In 2006 there were 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, compared to 69 cases involving bladed weapons and 16 cases of unarmed assault. Cases of assault resulting in bodily harm numbered 89 (firearms) and 526 (bladed weapons). The number of aggravated assaults due to firearms has declined since the 90s.

So they don't really care about violence or protecting people; they just have a hard-on for gun bans.

[Zixinus]

Yeah, how often do we get one of those again as opposed to some retard who thinks he's rambo and wants to rob a bank?

Yes, I'd like to know that too. I never heard of anyone pretending to be Rambo by using their legally purchased assault rifle.

Well yes, pistols are pretty deadly. But these Americans seem to have this wierd fixation on owning out-and-out weapons, so I doubt you'll get rid of those.

Those people are called the NRA and these people are usually a speachpipe for GOP.

The USA's fascination with guns is a topic within itself, but suffice to say that this culture does promote responsible gun use. They promote guns for the use of self-defence and hunting, both which can be a necessity if you live in rural areas.

On the other hand its probably just a cost/concealment thing. The criminals buy what's cheapest and easiest to hide, which is why we don't see them running around with assault rifles and what not.

Actually, there are several SMGs that are about the size of a pistol and comparable in price. Some criminals even "pimp" their weapons by nickel or gold (!) plating, so cheapness isn't that much of an issue.

Criminals however don't use their guns unless they have to. They don't use assault rifles because they don't have to. If someone is shooting at them with something they'd need assault rifles to respond, they already have deeper problems and would rather run away.

Its likely that several made-man type of guys have such a weapon in a hidden compartment of their house, in case there is a hit squad coming to visit. However, these are bound to be illegally there.

Cheapness and concealability is obvious a mayor factor, but the fact is, that if a criminal needs a bigger gun to do a job, they are going to need a whole list of other things too.

But as Coyote pointed out, if a criminal needs more destructive power than a handgun, they just use explosives.

[Coyote]

On the other hand its probably just a cost/concealment thing. The criminals buy what's cheapest and easiest to hide, which is why we don't see them running around with assault rifles and what not.

That's the head of it, right there. A typical street thug looking for a few bucks to support a drug habit will seek to knock over a convenience store or similar small-time operation (cab driver, pawn shop, etc). The reason is the cops won't get worked up over a small-store robbery, especially if no one gets hurt. The stores are insured and few clerks are going to be a hero for the, what, $100.00 in the till?

So, what crook, with a drug habit to support, is going to buy a 4 kilogram, meter-long 'assault-style' rifle just to get a bit of pocket change? He'll buy a crappy $30.00 pistol that may not even fire so he can wave it around and get his money. The pistol is also easy to conceal, he can run away with it (unlike a big heavy rifle that everyone can see) and if he has to, he can ditch it in a sewer or dumpster and he's not out $800.00 for an AR.

The criminals with the heavy weapons are your serious gangbangers and narco-traffickers, who are mostly bumping off rival gangs, not wasting time hitting mom-and-pop stores for chump change. If you can afford (and need) rifles, you're world revolves around hauls of cocain and heroin that brings in tens of thousands on a bad day, not petty robbery.