4 ms·

For the curious, in Switzerland, you don't keep ammo at home, there's proper registration of weapons with proper background checks, and it's treated more as a m

For the curious, in Switzerland, you don't keep ammo at home, there's proper registration of weapons with proper background checks, and it's treated more as a means of national defense, so having lots of guns is going to get you odd looks from people. Guns aren't seen as something for personal defense: that's the job of the police. In other words, Switzerland has a much healthier attitude towards gun ownership and usage.

Tainnor 4y ago
It's not just the attitude, it's also the sheer number of guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... The US is so far ahead of every other country, including Switzerland, that the argument "it works for the Swiss people" makes no sense.
suddenclarity 4y ago
Isn't that that the argument from pro gun people? It's people and the culture, not the guns. See Sweden for an interesting example. One of Europe's highest gun ownership with little gun violence back in the day. Then it changed and it's now a daily occurrence with gang shootings while the number of legal guns was reduced.
akomtu 4y ago
Switzerland has a more traditional, not healthier, relationship between the people and the state: the people are subjects who are given tiny freedoms, but are kept on tight leash, because the state has a deep distrust of its people. The abberation with guns is just insecurity of the state: it's small and needs its people to act as part-time military in reserve. If it had a bigger military, the fake gun rights would disappear overnight.
- talideon 4y ago
  Ah, do you have even the slightest clue about Switzerland?! I mean, it's quite impressive how you seem to have confused Switzerland for a highly centralised country with a distant political structure. Could you go and do some research on the country before you comment on it? > If it had a bigger military, the fake gun rights would disappear overnight. The Swiss military is _huge_ for its size. It has one of the largest militaries per capita in the world.
- hyperman1 4y ago
  They are one of the most people-empowering nations ever. If enough people indicate it(50k signatures in 100 days cfr google), a legally binding regerendum must be held. A simple majority can then change the law. I wish more nations could have that kind of direct acces to their democracy. Even so, the majority of these referenda fail to change anything, so presumably people tend to make more noise than wanting actual change.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > people are subjects who are given tiny freedoms, but are kept on tight leash, This take comes across as insulting and I am not even from there. Do you, by any chance, hail from the land of the free, where government can seize your property without even accusing you of a crime? (Civil forfeuiture)
  - akomtu 4y ago
    You are right to feel insulted, because this relationship is upside down. The founders of "the land of the free" were aware of this problem and that's why everywhere in the founding documents they talk about "the people" that must have liberties, vs "the state" that must be kept on leash. The civil forfeiture problem shows just that: the state has insatiable desire to control the people, and it finds way to do so despite an elaborate framework to keep its tentacles short.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      And yet all of these issues, when they come up, are invariably happening in the "land of the free", not in the "totalitarian state dystopia of the EU and neighboring countries".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Tainnor 4y ago

It's not just the attitude, it's also the sheer number of guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... The US is so far ahead of every other country, including Switzerland, that the argument "it works for the Swiss people" makes no sense.

suddenclarity 4y ago

Isn't that that the argument from pro gun people? It's people and the culture, not the guns. See Sweden for an interesting example. One of Europe's highest gun ownership with little gun violence back in the day. Then it changed and it's now a daily occurrence with gang shootings while the number of legal guns was reduced.

akomtu 4y ago

Switzerland has a more traditional, not healthier, relationship between the people and the state: the people are subjects who are given tiny freedoms, but are kept on tight leash, because the state has a deep distrust of its people. The abberation with guns is just insecurity of the state: it's small and needs its people to act as part-time military in reserve. If it had a bigger military, the fake gun rights would disappear overnight.

talideon 4y ago
Ah, do you have even the slightest clue about Switzerland?! I mean, it's quite impressive how you seem to have confused Switzerland for a highly centralised country with a distant political structure. Could you go and do some research on the country before you comment on it? > If it had a bigger military, the fake gun rights would disappear overnight. The Swiss military is _huge_ for its size. It has one of the largest militaries per capita in the world.
hyperman1 4y ago
They are one of the most people-empowering nations ever. If enough people indicate it(50k signatures in 100 days cfr google), a legally binding regerendum must be held. A simple majority can then change the law. I wish more nations could have that kind of direct acces to their democracy. Even so, the majority of these referenda fail to change anything, so presumably people tend to make more noise than wanting actual change.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> people are subjects who are given tiny freedoms, but are kept on tight leash, This take comes across as insulting and I am not even from there. Do you, by any chance, hail from the land of the free, where government can seize your property without even accusing you of a crime? (Civil forfeuiture)
- akomtu 4y ago
  You are right to feel insulted, because this relationship is upside down. The founders of "the land of the free" were aware of this problem and that's why everywhere in the founding documents they talk about "the people" that must have liberties, vs "the state" that must be kept on leash. The civil forfeiture problem shows just that: the state has insatiable desire to control the people, and it finds way to do so despite an elaborate framework to keep its tentacles short.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    And yet all of these issues, when they come up, are invariably happening in the "land of the free", not in the "totalitarian state dystopia of the EU and neighboring countries".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]