Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news  
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 16.11.2011, 00:34
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
We're not in a conflict, and have not been for 500 years.
Weapons of any kind have absolutely no place in today's society.
What defines a weapon? As others have pointed out, a car can be used to kill- should we then, by this rationale, abolish cars? What about rolling pins? One could strike another over the head with one of these and kill, thus it is a weapon. So, no more pies then?

There's no way to eliminate weapons, as a violent person would ultimately resort to his/her own fists, if nothing else were available.
  #62  
Old 16.11.2011, 00:34
Sky's Avatar
Sky Sky is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somewhere special far away
Posts: 4,234
Groaned at 62 Times in 45 Posts
Thanked 6,802 Times in 2,540 Posts
Sky has a reputation beyond reputeSky has a reputation beyond reputeSky has a reputation beyond reputeSky has a reputation beyond reputeSky has a reputation beyond reputeSky has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

As a hopeless idealist and pacifist, had I been born in another generation, I might have answered tanks with flowers.
Not saying it would have worked or would have been worth anything.. but one should stand up for one's beliefs and, if possible, make small changes for a better world.

It's not totalitarian to say that weapons have no place whatsoever, in every day society.
  #63  
Old 16.11.2011, 00:50
cannut's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 6,871
Groaned at 179 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 6,154 Times in 3,378 Posts
cannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond reputecannut has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa.../17527226.html

Here some statistic ,in a country where guns are illegal
  #64  
Old 16.11.2011, 01:25
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
As a hopeless idealist and pacifist, had I been born in another generation, I might have answered tanks with flowers.
Not saying it would have worked or would have been worth anything.. but one should stand up for one's beliefs and, if possible, make small changes for a better world.

It's not totalitarian to say that weapons have no place whatsoever, in every day society.
I admire your idealism.
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #65  
Old 23.11.2011, 21:00
yasmina
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

I don't see how people can defend guns. Honestly, I just don't understand it. Anyway that's just me.

The case in Neuchatel, was an accident. It wasn't a moronic person who did it. The thing which happened was stupid, but the fact is that if the gun wasn't there; no one one have died, so many lives wouldn't have been ruined.

As for guns being Swiss and in Swiss culture. Most of the Swiss I know hate guns, hate the glorification of guns and gun culture.

Yes, people killed each other before guns even existed. This is obvious. A gun cannot be compared to a kitchen knife, or a car, please think about it if you are one of the people who keeps comparing them. A gun is made to murder, instantly.

If it was your daughter or son who was killed, by accident by a stupid gun, maybe you'd see it differently.

As for the people who say that opinions can't be changed - well you're wrong. Maybe I'm not the person to do it. Maybe it will take someone close to you to be killed, I know in this tragic case, a lot of people in the circle now feel differently about guns.

As for protecting your family, I seriously believe you need to re-think your ideas. Having a gun in the house is putting people in more danger. In your opinion you are the only person who will use it, the one responsible, well life isn't clear and simple.... Just as you can get a hold of it, anyone else can. You can use other things to protect yourself, if you really feel the need to.
This user groans at for this post:
  #66  
Old 23.11.2011, 23:29
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
I don't see how people can defend guns. Honestly, I just don't understand it. Anyway that's just me.

The case in Neuchatel, was an accident. It wasn't a moronic person who did it. The thing which happened was stupid, but the fact is that if the gun wasn't there; no one one have died, so many lives wouldn't have been ruined.

As for guns being Swiss and in Swiss culture. Most of the Swiss I know hate guns, hate the glorification of guns and gun culture.

Yes, people killed each other before guns even existed. This is obvious. A gun cannot be compared to a kitchen knife, or a car, please think about it if you are one of the people who keeps comparing them. A gun is made to murder, instantly.

If it was your daughter or son who was killed, by accident by a stupid gun, maybe you'd see it differently.

As for the people who say that opinions can't be changed - well you're wrong. Maybe I'm not the person to do it. Maybe it will take someone close to you to be killed, I know in this tragic case, a lot of people in the circle now feel differently about guns.

As for protecting your family, I seriously believe you need to re-think your ideas. Having a gun in the house is putting people in more danger. In your opinion you are the only person who will use it, the one responsible, well life isn't clear and simple.... Just as you can get a hold of it, anyone else can. You can use other things to protect yourself, if you really feel the need to.
The idea that the soldiers should have their guns at home is out of times when at least one member of the family was usually around or at least nearby. While the reality today is that guns are in households where the members of the household during the day are 10 or 20 or 30 kilometers away. I had the gun in a cupboard on top and behind in two WWII towels (black and dark-red) and so practically not visible. It of course was good for that thing, but most of all it was secure for all of us.

The trouble is that the shooting-clubs realize that a law which would make it possible for the soldiers (or mandatory) to deposit the rubbish in an arsenal over a certain period would lead to an abolishment of the "Obligatorische" (Compulsary shooting) which is the financial basis for many of those clubs. As you have to buy the ammunition for something you do not wish but are condemned to do
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #67  
Old 24.11.2011, 10:18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 41
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 19 Times in 10 Posts
BobbysAnorak has no particular reputation at present
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Sure there is. "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." I'd rather be able to defend myself against a criminal invading my home, than to have to hide and pray.


I'm sure they said that about the 20th century, and then we had the two biggest wars in history...one of which was started in Europe (WWII was already 'started' in the Pacific for several years, IMHO) There will be wars fought wherever there is a group of people that covet what another group of people have- land, resources, or wealth, and try to use force to take it.



This absolutely should be investigated. Somebody screwed up, and now somebody's daughter is dead. It is a horrible tragedy. The man needs to be further assessed to see if he is fit for trial, and whomsoever enabled him by issuing him a weapon & ammunition after the assessment needs to face charges also.
Hmmm, Switzerland hasn't been invaded since 1798 and even if it was, do you think conscripts with a rifle and a hundred or so rounds each at home would do anything against an invading force, you are sadly mistaken.

Just out of interest, when was the last time you were confronted by a criminal in your home?
  #68  
Old 24.11.2011, 10:28
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Work in ZH, live in SZ
Posts: 12,070
Groaned at 339 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 23,071 Times in 8,348 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Hmmm, Switzerland hasn't been invaded since 1798 and even if it was, do you think conscripts with a rifle and a hundred or so rounds each at home would do anything against an invading force, you are sadly mistaken.
Really? The handguns and improvised explosives used in Iraq gave the strongest army of the world a pretty hard time in the last decade, no? And those Iraqis did not receive the same military training Swiss men got.

Honestly: From a defense perspective is it the most cost efficient and logical strategy. The question is more if you really need a defense strategy right now as there is no nazi nor communist threat anymore and Switzerland does not have any oil or natural resources worth invading...
The following 2 users would like to thank Treverus for this useful post:
  #69  
Old 24.11.2011, 10:33
Ouchboy's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Baden
Posts: 3,290
Groaned at 48 Times in 43 Posts
Thanked 5,532 Times in 2,119 Posts
Ouchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond reputeOuchboy has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Really? The handguns and improvised explosives used in Iraq gave the strongest army of the world a pretty hard time in the last decade, no? And those Iraqis did not receive the same military training Swiss men got.
Word.

Bomb disposal Robot-> 10,000 USD
IED -> 50 USD.
  #70  
Old 24.11.2011, 10:45
glennsche's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: zurich
Posts: 303
Groaned at 9 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 425 Times in 139 Posts
glennsche has an excellent reputationglennsche has an excellent reputationglennsche has an excellent reputationglennsche has an excellent reputation
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

[QUOTE=Treverus;1415900]Really? The handguns and improvised explosives used in Iraq gave the strongest army of the world a pretty hard time in the last decade, no? And those Iraqis did not receive the same military training Swiss men got.

Honestly: From a defense perspective is it the most cost efficient and logical strategy. The question is more if you really need a defense strategy right now as there is no nazi nor communist threat anymore and Switzerland does not have any oil or natural resources worth invading...[/QUOTE]


not entirely true. ive heard somewhere CH has 11% of europe's water.

could well become an issue later
The following 3 users would like to thank glennsche for this useful post:
  #71  
Old 24.11.2011, 11:07
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 41
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 19 Times in 10 Posts
BobbysAnorak has no particular reputation at present
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Really? The handguns and improvised explosives used in Iraq gave the strongest army of the world a pretty hard time in the last decade, no? And those Iraqis did not receive the same military training Swiss men got.

Honestly: From a defense perspective is it the most cost efficient and logical strategy. The question is more if you really need a defense strategy right now as there is no nazi nor communist threat anymore and Switzerland does not have any oil or natural resources worth invading...
OK, I can actually speak from experience here, so forgive me if I come across a bit strong....

How do you know what training the Iraqi insurgency has? You seem to be making the very same mistake as the invading forces, i.e. Underestimating them. You are talking a people who have bene operationally at war, on and off, for the last 30 ir so years. No amount of training hardens you like that, the Iraqi insurgents would do very well against a conscript Swiss army, but that is by the by really and a completely different argument.

I have heard of no other country that allows military grade weaponry to be taken home. It's insane. Even when in the British army, unless we were on operations, our weapons were kept under lock and key in an armoury. Where they should be.

Were we actually talking Iraq, Afghanistan or Kuwait, I might be able to understand the need to prepare for a possible invasion, as they have all been invaded very recently. But Switzerland?? We're talking a country that managed to avoid involvement in 2 of the biggest wars this panet has every seen, whilst being geographically slap bang in the middle of it.

My point about rifles at home being no defense is a very pertinent one, were Switzerland to be invaded, having rifles at home would do nothing. Nothing. Your use of Iraq is a poor example for one reason, it didn't stop them being invaded did it?
  #72  
Old 24.11.2011, 11:16
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
I don't see how people can defend guns. Honestly, I just don't understand it. Anyway that's just me.
I truly respect your opinion, and I will defend your right to have it to the utmost; however I simply disagree with it.


Quote:
View Post
The case in Neuchatel, was an accident. It wasn't a moronic person who did it. The thing which happened was stupid, but the fact is that if the gun wasn't there; no one one have died, so many lives wouldn't have been ruined.
Most firearms accidents are not caused by 'moronic' people, truly, but people who make mistakes. Unfortunately, guns are not very forgiving. Still, it was a person who discharged the firearm; the gun did not go off by itself. Again, I am very sorry to hear about this tragic event, and my heart goes out to yourself and your colleague.

Quote:
View Post
As for guns being Swiss and in Swiss culture. Most of the Swiss I know hate guns, hate the glorification of guns and gun culture.
I can't speak to this, as I don't personally know any Swiss whom I could ask.

Quote:
View Post
Yes, people killed each other before guns even existed. This is obvious. A gun cannot be compared to a kitchen knife, or a car, please think about it if you are one of the people who keeps comparing them. A gun is made to murder, instantly.
More people die in the US in automobile collisions than by firearm accidents. Further, more children in the US die in backyard swimming pools than die in firearm accidents. I think the comparisons are valid in pointing out the differing levels of attention these topics get. However, firearms are what gets the negative attention.

No, guns are not 'made to murder.' Guns are made to discharge a bullet. Murder is an illegal action, and used in this manner, only serves to emotionally load the argument. There are many legitimate functions that are served by firearms: hunting, target shooting, and self defense are the first that come to my mind.

Quote:
View Post
If it was your daughter or son who was killed, by accident by a stupid gun, maybe you'd see it differently.
I don't have any children (yet), so I don't know how I would feel if this ever happened to me. I pray I never find myself in that situation, and I know I will do everything in my power to prevent it.

Quote:
View Post
As for the people who say that opinions can't be changed - well you're wrong. Maybe I'm not the person to do it. Maybe it will take someone close to you to be killed, I know in this tragic case, a lot of people in the circle now feel differently about guns.
I truly respect you for standing for your beliefs, even though they may be different from my own. Discussing these things, IMO, is the only way our beliefs become better and stronger, whether that is a reaffirmation of our existing beliefs or a modification after new information has been considered.

Quote:
View Post
As for protecting your family, I seriously believe you need to re-think your ideas. Having a gun in the house is putting people in more danger. In your opinion you are the only person who will use it, the one responsible, well life isn't clear and simple.... Just as you can get a hold of it, anyone else can. You can use other things to protect yourself, if you really feel the need to.
Simply having a gun in the house does not put anyone in danger. Having grown up in a house with guns (multiple) in the house, as well as coming from families that have a history of keeping firearms in the house for more than 2 centuries, all without one accident, I can personally attest to this. My opinion never was that I would be the only person who would use a firearm- if my wife needed it to defend herself, she could use it also.

I could use something else to defend myself, but when I am faced by a weapon-wielding criminal, I want only the most effective, most guaranteed way of defending myself and my family. Sprays can blow back in my face, and some people have a very high tolerance to the discomfort caused by these things. Tasers, knives, and bludgeons all have a limited reach, meaning that I have to put myself in more danger to get close enough to defend myself. Stun-guns require complicated reloading processes in the likely event I miss with the first shot; meanwhile the attacker could close the distance and then I'm in trouble. A firearm offers me the best potential to stop someone determined on doing myself or my family harm.

Quote:
View Post
Hmmm, Switzerland hasn't been invaded since 1798 and even if it was, do you think conscripts with a rifle and a hundred or so rounds each at home would do anything against an invading force, you are sadly mistaken.
Simply because Switzerland hasn't been invaded recently does not imply it will not happen again. As recently as WWII, there were plans for a German invasion of Switzerland; it is simply because the opportunity never arose for the Germans that it didn't happen. I'd rather not depend on chance to defend my country.

Conscripts at least have training and proper military organization; I think that they would be able to put forth a good defense of their homelands, if the call came. If you want to find out what a bunch of untrained tribesmen with 'a rifle and a hundred or so rounds each at home' can do to one of the most powerful military forces in human history, you can ask any veterans of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Or if you want a more recent example- take a look at Libya.

Quote:
View Post
Just out of interest, when was the last time you were confronted by a criminal in your home?
Hasn't happened yet, and I pray it never happens, but again, this is not an indicator of whether or not it will happen. If it does, I'd like to be prepared for it.
The following 3 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #73  
Old 24.11.2011, 11:35
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 41
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 19 Times in 10 Posts
BobbysAnorak has no particular reputation at present
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
I truly respect your opinion, and I will defend your right to have it to the utmost; however I simply disagree with it.

Most firearms accidents are not caused by 'moronic' people, truly, but people who make mistakes. Unfortunately, guns are not very forgiving. Still, it was a person who discharged the firearm; the gun did not go off by itself. Again, I am very sorry to hear about this tragic event, and my heart goes out to yourself and your colleague.

I can't speak to this, as I don't personally know any Swiss whom I could ask.

More people die in the US in automobile collisions than by firearm accidents. Further, more children in the US die in backyard swimming pools than die in firearm accidents. I think the comparisons are valid in pointing out the differing levels of attention these topics get. However, firearms are what gets the negative attention.

No, guns are not 'made to murder.' Guns are made to discharge a bullet. Murder is an illegal action, and used in this manner, only serves to emotionally load the argument. There are many legitimate functions that are served by firearms: hunting, target shooting, and self defense are the first that come to my mind.

I don't have any children (yet), so I don't know how I would feel if this ever happened to me. I pray I never find myself in that situation, and I know I will do everything in my power to prevent it.

I truly respect you for standing for your beliefs, even though they may be different from my own. Discussing these things, IMO, is the only way our beliefs become better and stronger, whether that is a reaffirmation of our existing beliefs or a modification after new information has been considered.

Simply having a gun in the house does not put anyone in danger. Having grown up in a house with guns (multiple) in the house, as well as coming from families that have a history of keeping firearms in the house for more than 2 centuries, all without one accident, I can personally attest to this. My opinion never was that I would be the only person who would use a firearm- if my wife needed it to defend herself, she could use it also.

I could use something else to defend myself, but when I am faced by a weapon-wielding criminal, I want only the most effective, most guaranteed way of defending myself and my family. Sprays can blow back in my face, and some people have a very high tolerance to the discomfort caused by these things. Tasers, knives, and bludgeons all have a limited reach, meaning that I have to put myself in more danger to get close enough to defend myself. Stun-guns require complicated reloading processes in the likely event I miss with the first shot; meanwhile the attacker could close the distance and then I'm in trouble. A firearm offers me the best potential to stop someone determined on doing myself or my family harm.

Simply because Switzerland hasn't been invaded recently does not imply it will not happen again. As recently as WWII, there were plans for a German invasion of Switzerland; it is simply because the opportunity never arose for the Germans that it didn't happen. I'd rather not depend on chance to defend my country.

Conscripts at least have training and proper military organization; I think that they would be able to put forth a good defense of their homelands, if the call came. If you want to find out what a bunch of untrained tribesmen with 'a rifle and a hundred or so rounds each at home' can do to one of the most powerful military forces in human history, you can ask any veterans of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Or if you want a more recent example- take a look at Libya.

Hasn't happened yet, and I pray it never happens, but again, this is not an indicator of whether or not it will happen. If it does, I'd like to be prepared for it.
Hi Jobs, firstly, allow me to say, like you, I do respect your opinion, but i disagree with most of it, if not all.

When you have a country of 320 or so million, 40,000 road deaths a year, while still high, has to be taken into context against the size of the population.

I can't be bothered to trawl through all the statisitcics here, but all I shall say is PLEASE take a look for yourself.

The US is the poorest of poor examples you could use, per 100,000 people they have more Homocides (NOT accidents you note) than any other "civilised/western" country on earth.

Now, look through the rest of the league table... what do most, if not all of the countries in the top 10 have in common?

Guns are legal.

Using the argument that you need it for protection, again, does not wash. How many times in your entire life have you had need of a gun? If you are robbed or burgled, it is the police's job to bring them to justice. Not yours. We do not live in the wild west.

This total rubbish and condescending view of these "tribesman" really does grate, these "tribesmen" are INFINITELY better equipped for war than the conscript swiss army. Where you get this impression from astounds me.

What the allies found in Afghan and Iraq were not "Tribesmen" with sticks, handguns and a few hand grenades. these were highly trained, highly motivated and well equipped soldiers and, for the most part, they had been fightiong for years.

As for Libya..... do you honestly think Gadaffi would have been toppled without the massive support of the west? Honestly??

I guess some may get their news from CNN... I'd suggest a change.
  #74  
Old 24.11.2011, 11:44
Lex's Avatar
Lex Lex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Zug
Posts: 312
Groaned at 8 Times in 7 Posts
Thanked 257 Times in 138 Posts
Lex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond reputeLex has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
OK, I can actually speak from experience here, so forgive me if I come across a bit strong....

How do you know what training the Iraqi insurgency has? You seem to be making the very same mistake as the invading forces, i.e. Underestimating them. You are talking a people who have bene operationally at war, on and off, for the last 30 ir so years. No amount of training hardens you like that, the Iraqi insurgents would do very well against a conscript Swiss army, but that is by the by really and a completely different argument.
No, you have this the other way around respectfully. What your talking here is occupiers versus defenders. It doesnt matter if you are an Iraqi, Chinese or French. Defenders will ALWAYS have an advantage on local terrain, and very importantly, sympathy from the civilian population. Those things usually destroy occupying forces long term because they demoralise and bankrupt them.

I dont know whether Iraqis are better forces than Swiss, but i do know that the Swiss, and every male, can fight as a unit and has the basic training - the key here being the unit part, which means it can take orders from a strategical sense. Thats a big difference between handing a cilivian a weapon or a trained fighter.

Quote:
View Post
But Switzerland?? We're talking a country that managed to avoid involvement in 2 of the biggest wars this panet has every seen, whilst being geographically slap bang in the middle of it.
But can you not see why? Everything is done on a risk versus benefit analysis, even crossing the road. Do you think that maybe the reason why the Swiss werent invaded was because in the risk part you would have to put 'armed guerilla/militia force' and the costs of that would have been high. I dont understand the logic of people saying, 'but the swiss werent invaded', as thats the whole point, its a deterent. Its a deterent to the point that an occupying force 'could' win, but the costs would be so high that the occupying force would have to consider also not bothering. The Swiss are not trained as a occupying army. The fact the Swiss have these capabilities is probably the reason why the Swiss werent to be invaded at the beginning of the war (WW2), but towards its end.

Quote:
View Post
My point about rifles at home being no defense is a very pertinent one, were Switzerland to be invaded, having rifles at home would do nothing. Nothing. Your use of Iraq is a poor example for one reason, it didn't stop them being invaded did it?
Having rifles at home is an advantage. The first things that get knocked out during a crisis such as wars are the armory's. Without an armory an army is nothing and the Swiss as a defending force know that. Now whether that justifies arms at home or not is another matter.
The following 2 users would like to thank Lex for this useful post:
  #75  
Old 24.11.2011, 11:51
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,047
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,985 Times in 1,430 Posts
Texaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
...But Switzerland?? We're talking a country that managed to avoid involvement in 2 of the biggest wars this panet has every seen, whilst being geographically slap bang in the middle of it...
And do you think their being armed to the teeth had little or nothing to do with the Swiss having been surrounded by belligerents but not invaded during both of those wars?
The following 2 users would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
  #76  
Old 24.11.2011, 12:07
Treverus's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Work in ZH, live in SZ
Posts: 12,070
Groaned at 339 Times in 274 Posts
Thanked 23,071 Times in 8,348 Posts
Treverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond reputeTreverus has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Your use of Iraq is a poor example for one reason, it didn't stop them being invaded did it?
Erm, are you serious? The difference here is that Switzerland has a clear defense strategy that is "sure you can invade, we'll snipe you in the back like our national hero did". Iraq on the other hand was completely misunderstood by the US government before the invasion - they expected people to dance on the street of joy for them "bringing democracy". It caught them as a surprise. So the question is hypothetical: "If the US government had been able to foresee the entire guerilla war - would they still have invaded Iraq?" or simply put "how many soldiers were they willing to lose in exchange of an occupation of Iraq?". The trick of the strategy is to not prevent an invasion but to make it expensive.

But anyway: Why does it matter if the firearm is "military grade"? Germany has for example a pretty strict gun control. Did not stop high school massacres either as there always is and always will be a black market - if you are nuts and you want something, you'll get it. 99.x% of Swiss soldiers aren't nuts and don't go crazy with their gun. What upsets me is that time and again you'll find that all warning signs were there before one did go berserk. The teenage shooter from Höngg for example had a formal file from a mental hospital saying that he is not stable... and the army still gave him a gun home. That's the problem, not the gun itself.
  #77  
Old 24.11.2011, 12:22
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Hi Jobs, firstly, allow me to say, like you, I do respect your opinion, but i disagree with most of it, if not all.
Thank you, I appreciate that.

Quote:
View Post
When you have a country of 320 or so million, 40,000 road deaths a year, while still high, has to be taken into context against the size of the population.

I can't be bothered to trawl through all the statisitcics here, but all I shall say is PLEASE take a look for yourself.

The US is the poorest of poor examples you could use, per 100,000 people they have more Homocides (NOT accidents you note) than any other "civilised/western" country on earth.
While there are 40,000 road deaths in a year in the US, the number of accidental deaths due to firearms numbers only in the hundreds annually; meanwhile there are many more firearms in the US than automobiles. Like I said, the average person in the US is much more likely to die from many other things than from a firearm.

Introducing homicides, in general (intentional as well as accidental) changes the numbers somewhat, but you do not differentiate between justifiable homicide (self-defense, legal police action) and illegal homicide. I was discussing firearms accidents only, because, IMO, if someone wants to kill someone, either by premeditation or impulse, they'll find something to use, whether or not a gun is available, so homicide rate is no indicator of the safety of firearms nor an argument against them.

Quote:
View Post
Using the argument that you need it for protection, again, does not wash. How many times in your entire life have you had need of a gun? If you are robbed or burgled, it is the police's job to bring them to justice. Not yours. We do not live in the wild west.
The 'Wild West' is a poor comparison. Guns are heavily regulated, and Americans do not walk around with six-shooters on their hips, waiting to have a shootout at high noon. The origins of the 'Wild West' cowboy was from the general lack of law enforcement presence at that time. Many towns had only a one-person police department; some had no police department. If one wanted to protect one's life, property, and freedom, one had to do it oneself. This is no different than in any other country in the history of the world- the US just did it in an age of guns.

As I said earlier, past history is not an indication of future performance. I could live 99% of my life without ever encountering a situation where I might need to protect myself, but I would choose to be prepared for the 1% incident that could make that 99% a much shorter time on Earth than I choose.

Yes, it is the police's job, but the police are not always outside my door (nor do I want them there), but more likely some distance and time away. When someone invades my home and threatens my family, I need to defend myself now, not when the police arrive. By then, I could be dead.

Quote:
View Post
This total rubbish and condescending view of these "tribesman" really does grate, these "tribesmen" are INFINITELY better equipped for war than the conscript swiss army. Where you get this impression from astounds me.
I actually believe I was speaking in admiration of these tribesmen. Most have no formal education, much less proper military training. I agree with your premise that living one's life in a constantly warring environment hardens oneself, and the survivors learn quickly from the mistakes of the dead, but I agree with others who have said that you discount the value of people defending their homeland. Additionally, you overlooked the geographic advantages the Swiss have in defending their country. The Alps create a huge strategic barrier to invading armies and smaller groups of less-well-trained conscripts could hold off a larger professional army in the mountain passes for quite some time, possibly enough time for another country to come to Switzerland's aid.

Quote:
View Post
As for Libya..... do you honestly think Gadaffi would have been toppled without the massive support of the west? Honestly??
Would the West have gotten involved if the insurgents hadn't chosen to oppose Qadaffi's regime? My brother was 'over there' and involved in the US action against Qadaffi forces; if there hadn't been some belief in the viability of these forces, we wouldn't have supported them. I agree with you, however, in that they needed Western help to complete the job sooner, but I think they would've done it eventually.

Quote:
View Post
I guess some may get their news from CNN... I'd suggest a change.
I don't watch CNN. At all.
  #78  
Old 24.11.2011, 12:22
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 41
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 19 Times in 10 Posts
BobbysAnorak has no particular reputation at present
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Wow, if you are honestly trying to suggest that Hitler took a look at Switzerland said "Bugger that, they've got people at home with rifles." I'm not sure what else to say. incredible.

I will say this again, any conscript army is about as much use against a modern invading force as a wet tissue.
  #79  
Old 24.11.2011, 12:28
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Wow, if you are honestly trying to suggest that Hitler took a look at Switzerland said "Bugger that, they've got people at home with rifles." I'm not sure what else to say. incredible.

I will say this again, any conscript army is about as much use against a modern invading force as a wet tissue.
No, Hitler said "I want Switzerland, but I've got bigger fish to fry- Britain and Russia." Fortunately, the Allies turned the tide, and Hitler never got his chance. Do you think that he would've left Switzerland alone if he had had the opportunity to consolidate his ill-gotten gains?

Switzerland was fortunate, but eventually luck runs out. And then you need to defend your country...
  #80  
Old 24.11.2011, 12:42
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,047
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,985 Times in 1,430 Posts
Texaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond reputeTexaner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
...I will say this again, any conscript army is about as much use against a modern invading force as a wet tissue.
Yeah, just look at Israel's abysmal record, for example.

Quote:
View Post
...if you are honestly trying to suggest that Hitler took a look at Switzerland said "Bugger that, they've got people at home with rifles." I'm not sure what else to say. incredible.
Just maybe you're not sure what to say because you don't know what you're talking about. What the Nazis thought about Switzerland has been adequately documented here and here. Try pretending to be incredulous after reading those books.

And they weren't "people at home with rifles" — some 20% of the population was continuously under arms and mobilized throughout the war.

Last edited by Texaner; 24.11.2011 at 13:18.
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0