Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Living in Switzerland > Swiss politics/news  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 24.11.2011, 21:46
yasmina
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

st2lemans - Oh let me guess, that's not how the people in Ticino think?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #102  
Old 24.11.2011, 23:25
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,716 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
Actually, you know well that there were a handful of factors - not least an ongoing war on several fronts or the fact that there were some Swiss sympathies on their side as well, which resulted in trades during WWII which have tarnished any kind of Swiss reputation well into present days..

Other than that, I quite enjoy following this discussion.. keep it going..
The continued trade with all countries (just as done by Portugal, Ireland, Turkey) was/is not a big problem. A big problem was/is that the commercial banks in Switzerland took over lots of Jewish money but when the storm was over invented dozens of bureaucratic hurdles to deny paying back. And that nobody took care of the matter. In Portugal, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar DID settle the problems with the Jews. Alright, as dictator he could simply give orders

Back to the weapons at home. When Switzerland went into war mobilisation in WWII, Switzerland was NOT under attack and General Guisan could determine the date and time. So that the news hit CH households deep at night, and so most soldiers could take the weapon out in the very early morning and move. Gave them an advantage of maybe two hours against having to pick up the weapon at the arsenal, but not more. AND, as you cannot expect a possible wannabe-invader to have the courtesy to attack at a convenient time, most soliders at the critical time would be 20 or 30 kms away from home, and the advantage would be zero. All this means that the "weapons-at-home-doctrine" is clearly outdated and no longer makes real sense. And to keep the weapon at home for most is NOT a "right" but a "duty", a duty most could de very well without.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 24.11.2011, 23:42
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,716 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=cannut;1416687]
Quote:
View Post
No, I am poorly informed on the Swiss neutrality during the war, this I will admit.

However, do you think that this case for weapons at home still stands?[/QUOTE]
The case of weapons at home was decided just a view month ago, by a vote of the swiss citizen ,may I point out
I can tell you that there will be other votes, with the next one presumably be a bit more of a compromise by no longer making it compulsary but POSSIBLE to deposit the weapon in the arsenal (which will get lots of YES-votes) and by so many a bit hidden prohibitions. The YES to such a compromise will reduce the number of weapons in domiciles by at least 30% but up to 70% . The "NO" last time was not a YES for weapons stored at home but a NO against a number of small prohibitions and a NO against forcing people living in remote places to travel to a far-away arsenal when they need to get the weapon back.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #104  
Old 25.11.2011, 00:01
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,716 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
Sorry, but it really cracks me up when I hear something in the "they had no choice" line. Do you actually know what happened?
- Switzerland produced ammunition and sold it to ONE side, Germany. The allies bombed the factories in Schaffhausen as a retaliation (officially the bombers lost their way to Konstanz and by pure coincidence happened to bomb a weapons factory...)
- A five digit number of "forced labour" in Germany worked for Swiss companies, for example Maggi, Nestle, Lonza. Nobody can force them to use these slaves for their factories (German companies had a hard time to say no, but any Swiss boss could simply say "sorry, we are neutral, so I cannot use them"), they actively decided to benefit from them.
- don't get me started on the entire Nazi gold story or the "lost" accounts of Jewish victims of the holocaust.

In short: Switzerland was not neutral. Maybe the average Swiss person was, but the industrial and financial leaders were anything but neutral. They worked hand in hand with the Nazis and delivered important products for the war effort. And that's exactly why nobody invaded the country.
A) the bombers did NOT bomb "THE factories" but bombed the rail-station (40% DB btw.) and the residentail quarter up the hill to the "Breite" and much of the innercity. SIG is nicely visible from the south, but THE factories were not bombed as much as downtown and "lower" Breite. The choice of localities shows that it was an error.
B) Switzerland as long as it was possible sold material to "the other side" but as Nazi-Germany of course had an eye on exports via N.G. controlled areas of Europe could no longer deliver to "the other side". Which reduced the list of possible customers for military products to just ONE
C) Swiss companies in Germany worked under German law. No, a Swiss boss out there could NOT say "NO", not at all
D) Most of the people were AGAINST Nazi-Germany and also the political and military top brass was mostly anti-German, and so, YES, Switzerland was NOT neutral, it was on the side of the anti-NaziGermany allies, except a few rich business tycoons
E) the "Abwehr" which was the anti-spionnage service, was clearly anti-German and regularily delivered their results to "services" of the embassies of the USA and Britain in Bern
F) at the other hand, in a deal with Berlin, the DB had the right to send cargo-trains from Basel to Chiasso enroute to Italy between 21.00 and 05.00 on a few specified routes
G) the "lost" accounts were lost to the greed of some bankers
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #105  
Old 25.11.2011, 00:18
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 can understand most of where you are coming from... I am British, so my perspective will be a little different.

Cars really aren't the best argument here. Not many people intentionally run someone over or crash.....in much the same way, as your stat so helpfully pointed out, not many people accidentally shoot someone. Gun related deaths are nearly always intentional.
Cars are a great argument, because of the perceptual difference between them and firearms. People are very serious about firearm regulation and safety, but take a much more casual view of cars, and this is part of why there are so many more car fatalities today. The same mindset explains why more US children die in backyard swimming pools than do by firearms.

Quote:
View Post
IF guns were made illegal in America and those laws properly enforced, do you think you would need one to protect yourself from people who would no longer be armed? Or is your stance that you want one only because everyone else does? i completely understand you wnating to protect your family, if I were under that threat, I may think about doing the same.
The problem is that there is no way to properly enforce a ban on firearms. Law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns (otherwise they'd be criminals) while many criminals would choose to defy the law and keep their guns, which would give the criminals an advantage in imposing their will by violence. Many countries have tried to ban firearms, but invariably determined criminals do still find ways to obtain them.

IMHO, anyone who wants a firearm simply because everyone else has one is someone who doesn't need to have one.
Quote:
However, you allude to the view that you don't want anyone telling you that you can't have a gun, as it is your choice. This is where we differ. Most governments have made asbestos illegal as it kills, you can't "choose" to insulate your house with it. this is the role of government in some instances.... I am sure you disagree. Is the issue the US has with Guns being intertwined with your ideas of freedom maybe? Genuine question.

Fascinating hearing your views, even if we do differ.
Personally, I probably believe in a lot less government regulation than you do. If someone wants to use asbestos, especially knowing the hazards, that is their stupidity, and not the government's job to protect them from themselves.


It is good to discuss this objectively, thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 25.11.2011, 00:56
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,716 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
Cars are a great argument, because of the perceptual difference between them and firearms. People are very serious about firearm regulation and safety, but take a much more casual view of cars, and this is part of why there are so many more car fatalities today. The same mindset explains why more US children die in backyard swimming pools than do by firearms.



The problem is that there is no way to properly enforce a ban on firearms. Law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns (otherwise they'd be criminals) while many criminals would choose to defy the law and keep their guns, which would give the criminals an advantage in imposing their will by violence. Many countries have tried to ban firearms, but invariably determined criminals do still find ways to obtain them.

IMHO, anyone who wants a firearm simply because everyone else has one is someone who doesn't need to have one.


Personally, I probably believe in a lot less government regulation than you do. If someone wants to use asbestos, especially knowing the hazards, that is their stupidity, and not the government's job to protect them from themselves.


It is good to discuss this objectively, thank you.
It as a first step should become POSSIBLE for CH soldiers to deposit the weapon at the local arsenal. It A) would help many and B) would reduce the numbers of weapons around.

If you have a weapon at home and work 25kms away you have ZERO command or control of that ugly piece of sh..... !

I simply do not believe in too many prohibitions or laws which by their nature need special permits for thousands of cases, I simply believe in pragmatist and practical solutions. And I believe in step-by-step solutions and distrust "hey-presto-recipes"
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 25.11.2011, 02:11
cannut's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: canada
Posts: 6,871
Groaned at 179 Times in 139 Posts
Thanked 6,151 Times in 3,377 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

Quote:
View Post
It as a first step should become POSSIBLE for CH soldiers to deposit the weapon at the local arsenal. It A) would help many and B) would reduce the numbers of weapons around.

If you have a weapon at home and work 25kms away you have ZERO command or control of that ugly piece of sh..... !

I simply do not believe in too many prohibitions or laws which by their nature need special permits for thousands of cases, I simply believe in pragmatist and practical solutions. And I believe in step-by-step solutions and distrust "hey-presto-recipes"
Wolly! your old gramophone record has a crack in it and is badly scratched ,with other words ,"you sound like a broken record "
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 25.11.2011, 06:50
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,047
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,984 Times in 1,429 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
Wolly! your old gramophone record has a crack in it and is badly scratched ,with other words ,"you sound like a broken record "
Don't mind him. He's just sucking up to the mods by staying on topic (unlike the rest of us).
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
  #109  
Old 25.11.2011, 06:59
Texaner's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Zentralschweiz
Posts: 2,047
Groaned at 99 Times in 89 Posts
Thanked 2,984 Times in 1,429 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
A) the bombers did NOT bomb "THE factories" but bombed the rail-station (40% DB btw.) and the residentail quarter up the hill to the "Breite" and much of the innercity. SIG is nicely visible from the south, but THE factories were not bombed as much as downtown and "lower" Breite. The choice of localities shows that it was an error.
B) Switzerland as long as it was possible sold material to "the other side" but as Nazi-Germany of course had an eye on exports via N.G. controlled areas of Europe could no longer deliver to "the other side". Which reduced the list of possible customers for military products to just ONE
C) Swiss companies in Germany worked under German law. No, a Swiss boss out there could NOT say "NO", not at all
D) Most of the people were AGAINST Nazi-Germany and also the political and military top brass was mostly anti-German, and so, YES, Switzerland was NOT neutral, it was on the side of the anti-NaziGermany allies, except a few rich business tycoons
E) the "Abwehr" which was the anti-spionnage service, was clearly anti-German and regularily delivered their results to "services" of the embassies of the USA and Britain in Bern
F) at the other hand, in a deal with Berlin, the DB had the right to send cargo-trains from Basel to Chiasso enroute to Italy between 21.00 and 05.00 on a few specified routes
G) the "lost" accounts were lost to the greed of some bankers
As has already been said, "neutral" doesn't mean having nothing to do with the belligerents.

Elements that Wolli didn't mention (and which balance the picture in some measure) include hosting and cooperating with a US intelligence boss's HQ, selling parts to the allies, treating downed US airmen as (captive) guests rather than war prisoners, and executing Swiss citizens caught spying on behalf of Germany, all of which is well documented here.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
  #110  
Old 25.11.2011, 09:47
Gurlok's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Zurich
Posts: 4
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Gurlok has no particular reputation at present
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Guns don't kill people... People kill people!

He shouldn't have been given a gun, sure! He would've then used someting else, baseball bat, kitchen knife, car. God, even a piece of string can be used to kill!

Why don't we restrict everything that "could" be leathal??!!??
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Gurlok for this useful post:
Reply




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 19:48.


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