Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Swiss voters have rejected proposed tighter controls on gun ownership, near-complete results show. It means that the voters decided during the referendum to retain the current system, which allows army-issued weapons to be kept at home. Supporters of the tighter curbs wanted to have weapons kept in armouries and demanded stricter checks on gun owners. Opponents said the move would undermine trust in the army. The final result of the vote is expected soon. Near-complete results show at least 14 out of 26 Swiss cantons rejected the proposal in Sunday's vote. For the proposal to succeed, it required the support of the majority of Swiss citizens and the cantons. Overall, about 57% of the Swiss voters rejected the plan, while 43% backed it.
the Swiss army is a national institution, and changing anything about it is controversial
It sounds like the Swiss aren't concerned about the issue of gun-control so much as the issue of changing a revered institution.
Maybe the gun-control groups sold the initiative wrong. They should have sold it based on the famous Swiss tendency towards efficiency. Wouldn't it make more sense for the Swiss Army to store weapons in armories so that it would know how many it had in working order, how many of the most current issue it had, how much of what kind of ammunition is required, how much maintenance is required, etc? Instead of relying on the millions of people to keep up their military weapons themselves.
Would it make more sense to have to not keep on providing a new weapon for every recruit that comes through training?
In the Swiss army there are no recruits. Service is compulsory so every male serves a stint in the army and is issued a gun at that time. You cannot really compare the gun culture in Switzerland with that of the US. Here there is virtually zero gun-related crime. Although plenty of gun-related suicides.
It sounds like the Swiss aren't concerned about the issue of gun-control so much as the issue of changing a revered institution.
Maybe the gun-control groups sold the initiative wrong. They should have sold it based on the famous Swiss tendency towards efficiency. Wouldn't it make more sense for the Swiss Army to store weapons in armories so that it would know how many it had in working order, how many of the most current issue it had, how much of what kind of ammunition is required, how much maintenance is required, etc? Instead of relying on the millions of people to keep up their military weapons themselves.
Would it make more sense to have to not keep on providing a new weapon for every recruit that comes through training?
I don't know, just asking.
I would think what they are doing is working.
When was the last time Switzerland was invaded? Hitler never saw a country he didn't want to destroy, yet he skipped Switzerland.
In the Swiss army there are no recruits. Service is compulsory so every male serves a stint in the army and is issued a gun at that time. You cannot really compare the gun culture in Switzerland with that of the US. Here there is virtually zero gun-related crime. Although plenty of gun-related suicides.
You are from Martinsburg? And now you live in Geneva?
When was the last time Switzerland was invaded? Hitler never saw a country he didn't want to destroy, yet he skipped Switzerland.
Interesting.
You need to know your history .....
1. The only strategic advantage to Switzerland were the train lines and roads through the Alps. These were heavily fortified and, when France fell, the Swiss pulled almost all of their army back into the Alps. Taking them would have been very costly for the Germans and they didn't need that when they were about to invade Russia.
2. Politically, it would have been difficult for Hitler to justify invading a largely German speaking country. Although he was a dictator, he still had to manage his power base.
3. The Swiss allowed German transports to transit through to Italy after the fall of France so why invade when you are getting what you need.
4. A neutral Switzerland was useful for intelligence and other non-military purposes. They could also buy arms and other materials from a Swiss industry that was not getting bombed.
1. The only strategic advantage to Switzerland were the train lines and roads through the Alps. These were heavily fortified and, when France fell, the Swiss pulled almost all of their army back into the Alps. Taking them would have been very costly for the Germans and they didn't need that when they were about to invade Russia.
2. Politically, it would have been difficult for Hitler to justify invading a largely German speaking country. Although he was a dictator, he still had to manage his power base.
3. The Swiss allowed German transports to transit through to Italy after the fall of France so why invade when you are getting what you need.
4. A neutral Switzerland was useful for intelligence and other non-military purposes. They could also buy arms and other materials from a Swiss industry that was not getting bombed.
The Swiss drew up plans to defend against an invading Germany, also...
Good deal for the Swiss. Sticking an thumb into the eye of the rest of progressive anti-gun Europe. Swiss citizens don't like the gun laws? Move to another country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
