This forthcoming referendum Feb 13, 2011 will be a close run thing I figure. The vote would have a fairly drastic effect on Switzerland which has one of the highest number of firearms per population ratios in the world (because of the militia army concept).

For the referendum:

http://www.schutz-vor-waffengewalt.ch/

The pro referendum group are seeking:
- Store all army issued weapons in army depots and arsenals
- A national firearms register
- Potential firearm owners should be able to prove why they need a weapon and should be of good standing.
- Withdrawal of surplus guns from circulation.


And the "keep things as they are" fraternity:

http://www.waffeninitiative-nein.ch/

The opposition's arguments:
- The initiative's aims are an illusion and will not bring any better safety conditions.
- The initiative takes away the trust factor from the Swiss population and undermines the concept of our militia army.
- A yes vote would only create new rules and administration, which implies greater costs for no tangible results.
- The initiative is an affront to traditional Swiss values and will create problems for established gun clubs, hunters and farmers.

This is pretty much the rifle clubs and SVP trying to keep things all cozy and traditionalist.

I believe that there's more than enough good arguments to have weapons either taken out of (relatively) free circulation and locked up or decommissioned entirely. The right wing is plain wrong on this one in my opinion and hasn't grasped the ethical shift in people's opinions who have simply had enough of people resorting to guns to settle domestic disputes or suicide attempts. The figures are blurry about exactly how many gun related deaths occur annually in Switzerland, but the pro-initiative lobby put the number at 300.

The arguments about people who are going to commit crimes whatever the laws of a land may be are bound to be rolled out, but why make their lives any easier by keeping firearms unlicensed and in free circulation? Guns are designed to kill, so leave them in the hands of the active army and with police forces. An assault rifle (Sturmgewehr) has no place in the domestic home in my vision of a peaceful future. The Russians ain't coming....

For those of you who can vote, exercise your rights February 13, your children will thank you.

Our household will be voting 'NO'.

Tom

The thread of the title says 2010....you mean 2011?

Yeah I know, I've asked the mods to change it, I can't amend the title myself. The date is February 13, 2011.

The "ja" on my ballot will be extra big!

Sorry about the delay in correcting the title - I, for one, didn't see a request anywhere. Done now.

Merci viumal

as an assassin, you just want to lower our defences...

I can see one 'positive' comment from the 'no' crew - a militia may not be so effective if they have no weapons on hand.

I also see no problem with a firearms register and potential gun owners having to say why they want a gun - you have to have your car registered, after all, although the use of a car is generally self-evident.

Depending on how secure the central armoury is, there may be problems there - but if it's on an active military base, it will be secure.
Some idiotic politician tried to get target pistol clubs in Australia to have a 'central' armoury for all members' firearms a while back, so all of these weapons would have been stored in a building that's empty most of the week ... stupid, much?

Given that this is Switzerland, shouldn't that number be much better defined?
Shouldn't one be suspicious of any numbers presented by a staunchly 'pro' or 'con' group? What does 'gun-related death' mean? Are they the result of criminal acts or home defense or accidents? How many of these 'gun-related deaths' are caused by Swiss citizens versus foreigners here temporarily (committing crimes, say, who would not be subject to Swiss law anyway)?

gun related deaths aren't necessarily preventable by removing guns. if someone is going to kill themselves using a gun, they can just as easily do it with a kitchen knife.

for a domestic dispute, it would be better that a gun is used rather than a kitchen knife as the report from the gun will notify neighbours/police and is likely to be less deadly than a knife.

Personnally, it makes me feel very unconfortable to think that my daughter might be invited to play at a house's friend where the parents keep an arm lying around. However, all my swiss friends tell me that their parents keep their arm and amunitions apart from each other locked away. Saying that, I know one family who has a gun and my daughter will not go there!

Also, there is no more crimes committed here than anywhere else ( especially USA) with guns. More suicides are done with guns than anywhere else but I guess that when someone wants to commit suicide if does not matter wether an arm is there or not, the person will find another way..

My dad has his army riffle at home. Amunition was in a different place though. We were taught from my parents that we were not allowed to touch the gun

I too feel quite strongly about this issue.

Some close Swiss friends, will however, vote no.
They believe that taking weapons away will not improve anything and in fact will disempower the people dramatically and take away the freedom of revolt if necessary.
Not revolution against the "Russians" of course, but the evil powers of capitalism which may sound ridiculous, but think a little about this. Things are changing in our society and not for the better.
Ok - I haven't explained this very well, and I don't necessarily see the sense of each citizen having his own weapon of revolt, but anyway.

This film was interesting from this point of view :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beresin...of_Switzerland

Do we have any better idea of the truth of the gun crime statistics or how they break down? As I heard it, most gun misuse in this country is for suicide.

For the US I would strongly support gun control of the kind suggested in the proposal. In Switzerland I'm not so sure it's as important as gun crime appears low here, having said that I don't see any good reasons why people should be allowed to have assault rifles and one life saved is one life saved.

The 'no' vote posters I've seen are ridiculous: "Should criminals have a monopoly on guns?". Er, no . . . they shouldn't have guns either.

Even if it's locked in a safe where a child can't get at it? What exactly are you afraid of? What about the kitchen knives?

Criminals don't usually buy their guns from a shop and register them either.

Well, the counterargument is that under current rules you only keep your military rifle at home: the standard-issue ammo for it is locked up* in a depot somewhere. Why not have the gun at the depot too?

...and the counterargument to that is that in a militia-activation scenario, passing out one truckload of ammo is much easier (takes fewer vehicles, fewer men, less time) than passing out seven truckloads of guns and a truckload of ammo. Take the guns away and all future military planning/budgeting has to factor in the logistics of redistributing them, presumably while already being shot at.

This is a pretty undeniable cost, so you have to argue that the peacetime benefits are worth it...


*Of course you can buy exactly the same ammo in a gun shop and keep it at home - and some people do, e.g. if they fancy a bit of extra shooting practice throughout the year.

I heard from a Swiss guy that his militia unit were issued one sealed box of ammo as well, after they finished their initial training, which had to be kept in a separate part of his apartment from the gun ... is this not the normal way? He said there were penalties if the sealed box was opened without orders ...

Also, the implied argument from the gun lobby is that guns are used for protection against criminals.

Has this ever happened?