Talk:Firearms regulation in Switzerland

What is Auszug?

... period of service in the Auszug (the active-duty field army), after.... What the hell is "Auszug"??? I'm a Swiss and I've been in the Army, but I've never ever heard of this word in context with the army. Can anyone give proof that this word is used properly here?

And advocates of victim disarmament persist in efforts to attribute the relative dearth of firearms-related crime in Switzerland to laws and regulations when in fact it is the cultural and individual attitude toward weapons (and their role in the preservation of Swiss independence as a nation and Swiss citizens' rights as individuals) that is the true controlling factor.

Between universal military service (including decades of personal obligation to the militia following initial training and active duty) and direct voter control of civil government via frequent referenda, the Swiss are continuously reminded that the source of sovereignity in their democracy is the individual citizen, and they do not fear that citizen being armed and capable. The fact that Swiss society is a gun culture is merely a consequence of historical and social factors that have long fostered a prevailing sense of civic authority and personal responsibility that has become part of the Swiss national character.

The hoplophobe, by contrast, has no such trust in the moral or civic validity of the individual citizen, and persists in an unreasoned terror of firearms in the hands of anyone other than an officer of government. This fear is such that the victim disarmament fanatic is not only willing but eager to do away with democracy and the principles of government limited by law in order to secure an illusory "social peace."

No.

Yes, it is true that in Switzerland, gun ownership is easier than in the rest of Europe. Yes, it is true that universal military service does something to discipline. It is however stretching it way too far to contemplate any similarity between the US and Swiss situations. For most Swiss having a weapon is a Duty, an annoying one at that. Not a Right. Also those weapon are meant to defend the State in case of an external aggression. No set of circumstances would save your ass in a Swiss court if you shot someone in "self-defense". Weapons are simply not meant for that.

The source of sovereignty is the People, especially in a direct democracy as Switzerland -- but it has nothing to do with the people being armed. The people are armed as a measure of protections against the Powers surrounding Switzerland. Please go read the Swiss Constitution before spouting stupid nonsense. Also go look up the meaning of Social Contract.

Oh, and Switzerland is not a gun culture. It is a Sovereign Nation. And its citizens have a general dislike for the so-called gun culture in the US.

Interesting choices of pompous capitalization ("Duty" and "State" and "People" and "Powers"), don't you think? And if "having a weapon is a Duty, an annoying one at that," what accounts for the high rates of private ownership - at each individual's own cost and upon such an individual's own voluntary election - of military battle rifles, modified assault rifles, service pistols, and semi-automatic carbines in Switzerland? These are not sporting firearms (such as shotguns or hunting rifles), and yet their owners take pains to acquire them and to maintain proficiency in their use (which last effectively defines a member of a gun culture).

Simple. You get attached to your gun. At the end of your duties, you may retain the gun and many do so. Shooting in a range is fun, and no one has anything against that. And shooting ranges are built for the usage of those weapons.

Ah, human nature. After decades of familiarity with the tools of military mayhem, the militiaman finds nothing mysterious or totemic about things that go bang. Neither do his neighbors and family members, you might note. The average Swiss child grows up watching Daddy (and occasionally these days, Mommy) spreading an oilcloth across the kitchen table to clean and lubricate either a militia weapon or a privately-owned MIL-SPEC firearm. They learn familiarity with and respect for the capabilities of these tools of war, much as do American children brought up in the gun culture. And to what extent does it do them harm? Further the deponent sayeth not.

And where have I drawn a similarity between the American situation and circumstances prevailing in Switzerland? Except for the fact that human nature is a universal constant, there need be no presumption of deliberate correspondence between civil society in the Confœderatio Helvetica and that which predominates in these United States of America.

You know, only an American Gun Nut has those kind of discourse. The very oriented nature of your edits identifies you as such.

Indeed, only an arrant constitutionalist among the American population would hold or profess such opinions. One need not be a "Gun Nut" to articulate sound arguments for government limited by rule of law, or for the right of the individual to acquire and utilize those weapons suited to the exercise of self-defense. Encountering such a disputant bothers the daylights out of you, doesn't it? Tsk. You really should get out more.

No actually what annoys me is some guy from Virginia explaining to me (returning from my military service) what the prevalent attitude is in Switzerland. Towards weapons. Or the Army. CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Admittedly, the American Founding Fathers purposefully drew upon the Swiss experience when drawing up the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution, and the Swiss relied heavily upon the U.S. Constitution when undertaking revision of their own federal constitution in 1891, but it would be a mistake to conclude that the circumstances coloring the histories of these two nations are in any way identical. Austrians and Burgundians coming across the borders to murder, rape, and loot are not Mohawk and Abenaki tribesmen coming across the frontier to murder, rape, and loot.

See, this is the difference. No one in their right mind in Switzerland actually believes in a foreign invasion anymore. And though the People is very attached to its army, for reasons which are partly rational and partly emotional, not so with guns. Last time there was a votation restricting rights of ownership as a side-effect, this argument did not even register. Weapons are there, in the collective psyche to defend the Country, not the individuals.

And what is "the Country" if not the individuals making up the population thereof? In the words of Professor Bernardo de la Paz, "concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals." By all means, please provide support for your "collective psyche" argument. The characterization of the human being as something akin to a hive-dwelling insect is something I've never seen adequately explained. And if there is no belief in the need to defend against foreign aggression, how does the Federal government in Switzerland justify the considerable expense of universal military service, the maintenance of border and internal redoubt fortifications, and so forth? Why do not the citizens of the various Cantons simply vote the Auszug out of existence?

Switzerlend is by no means a homogeneous entity. Less so, for example than the US. The universal service exists still because a significant part of the population is in favour. For reasons of social cohesion, because it allows for a large army, which is useful in case of disaster relief, because some think it is necessary to provide protection against external aggression, etc. Note that for the militia to be disbanded, the vote of both the People and the Cantons would be required.CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to a Swiss citizen's use of a firearm in self-defense, please provide references proving that such utilization in extremis is prosecuted in the Swiss cantons so vigorously and so harshly as to effectively foreclose all exercise of such an option. The "social contract" is not a suicide pact.

There is a principle of right called proportionality. You may of course defend yourself. If some madman attacks you with an assault rifle, you may replicate. Not with government provided ammo, though. You are guilty of the damage you did, but the judge may freely reduce your sentence.[1].

Such a principle of proportionality obtains in common, case, and statute law throughout the Western world. Given the legal citation you courteously provide, there can be no argument that the right to self-defense is curtailed in its practical and actual exercise in the Swiss Confederation. At most, the inappropriate employment of military-issue firearms and/or ammunition would compound a tortious or criminal action with an additional charge of misuse of government property.

Actually, if a burglar drowns in your swimming pool while you weren't there, you are responsible for his accident. If you defend your "property" with guns, you are liable. You do not understand very well how it works, I see...CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

As for the Swiss federal constitution, initially adopted in 1848 following the Sonderbundskrieg and subsequently revised to keep the government of the Confederation under the control of direct democracy, you would do well yourself to review this charter.[2] Your statements thus far cast into grave doubt your appreciation of Swiss history and law - not to mention human nature itself.

Actually, it is you who have no understanding of the law.

By all means, please elucidate.

The modern form of the constitution is from 78. But it gets revised nearly yearly to keep it current. Again, you apparently have no experience of direct democracy in a federal system. Please refrain from spouting unfounded opinions.CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

151.204.10.59, I would appreciate it if you could avoid making personal attacks to other contributors; your inferring of their opinions are not acceptable, and speaking of this, I would appreciate if you could spare us your racist views yourself.

I would like to point out that your only contributions to Wikipedia have been a handful of very tendencious and ill-informed edits, while CyrilleDunant can easily prove that he is not a purposeful monomaniac.

I would like to suggest that you either try and contribute in a constrictive manner here, or go contribute your rants to somewhere where they are welcome. Thank you very much in advance. Rama 13:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Addressing the arguments of contending commentators - as opposed to succumbing to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem - can only be considered "making personal attacks" by someone unfamiliar with the principles and practices of debate.

As for your perception of racism on my part, I hope you will join me in lamenting the fact that it is currently politically popular in many circles to obliterate the memory of certain historical conflicts, particularly with regard to those in which Native Americans fought against European settlers and the governments of nations in North and South America. Would you consider it similarly "racist" if I were to discuss just as egregiously vicious struggles between other ethnic groups and conquering nation-states, such as the Zaporozhie Cossacks' wars with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th Century? How about the Ottoman Empire's conquest (and religious subjugation) of the Balkans and their recurring assaults upon Vienna?

Political correctness is properly viewed as a form of self-inflicted psychological wounding. Is it inappropriate to say so? Or do you consider it "tendentious" or "ill-informed" simply to offer a point of view contrary to your own personal prejudices? Pertinent to your risible ad hominem effort to condemn as monomania my focus upon the subject presently at hand (hardly a "constructive" notion, I should think), do you please consider your own fixations herewith demonstrated. Were you not acting upon baseless bigotries, you would not so casually and sloppily speak of my writings as "racist" or "ill-informed" without adequate proof of your accusations.

If I am "ill-informed," by all means inform me. If it is "racist" to speak of the bloody raids and the battles between Native Americans and European settlers that occurred up and down the Mohawk Valley in the 18th Century, by all means provide logical proof thereof. I'm perfectly willing to do you such a service. Reciprocity would merely serve as a manifest of your willingness to participate in civil discourse. Much obliged.

151.204.10.59, this page is intended for talk about how to improve the article Gun politics in Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you are so keep to put you lengthy discourses on the Internet, I suggest you start a blog. Rama 15:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Caliber Debate

I have moved the debate on the chambering of the SIG SG550, adopted by the CH as Gw.90, here. The argument is unnecessary: 5.6x45mm, currently Swiss GP90, is the same cartridge case as 5.56 x 45 mm NATO. It was adopted under the name 5.6x45mm for political reasons; namely, that Switzerland did not want to appear to be adopting a NATO standard caliber in the 1980s. 208.40.64.2 15:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I take note of the article's revision to restore much of the previous erroneous content (including the gormless notion that the SIG 550 assault rifle is chambered in 5.6 mm rather than 5.56 mm, said error having been freely admitted by CyrilleDunant above). Such censorship is a stark and wonderfully clear manifest of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy behind gun control, isn't it? When factual reality gets in your way, by all means obliterate every thought of factual reality. Quod erat demonstrandum.

This only means that unlike you, I am open the reflection, doubt, and subsequent facts comming into play. Now, having asked a couple sergents, a first lieutenant, and a lieutenant-colonel, I will revert it back to 5.6. As per what is indicated in army manuals.CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have seen absolutely nothing to tell me that the ammunition for the Sig 550 is of anything else than 5,6 mm, as shown of the photograph of a box.

If you have anything factual and constructive to contribute on this site, you are welcome to do so; this said, your rants are not. Rama 17:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that a small PS is in order:

* the "moral and intellectual bankruptcy" of anyone is not the topic of the discussion here, but you bringin this sort of talking in is quite symptomatic of the tendency of some people to have a very extensive knoweldge of the conclusions they want and then be ready to jump to the "facts" that will back up this pre-determined images of the world. I would have expected that with the recent example of the Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction", for instance, people who be more keen to adapting their conclusions to the facts at hand rather than the converse.

Professional politicians lie for a living. This is news? And this is supposed to make anyone feel more comfortable about allowing these same professional politicians to violate (as a matter of public policy) the Second Amendment of the U.S. charter of government? If you don't trust these lying sons-of-many-sorts, think about the sentiments of those of us who live and raise our families under their direct jurisdiction.

* About the minute question about the chambering of the Sig 550, it so turns out that all the people who know nothing of the question say that the rifle is a 5,56mm, half the site of Sig say that is it 5,56 mm and the other half say it is 5,6mm, and all military documentation and matériel say 5,6 mm.

I've been through the SIG Arms AG Web site, including the page specificaly describing the SIG 550[3]. Where on that Web site have you found any assertion on the part of the manufacturer to the effect that this weapon is chambered in 5.6 mm?

** I can't possibly imagine why they would round the number of the calibre

They wouldn't. Indeed, they didn't.

** The bullet is quite heavier than the 5,56mm

It is certainly heavier than the bullet in the standard 5.56 x 45 mm NATO cartridge, but that is accomplished not by increasing bullet diameter but by differences in other charactaristics of the projectile, both in length and in material composition. One purpose of this modification is to change the in-flight ballistic profile of the GW90 round so as to better satisfy the requirements of the Swiss military when the government of the Confederation elected to transition from the SIG 510 to the SIG 550 as their standard military long arm.

** in either case, the chambering would still be compatible with the 5,56mm

Nope. See the current RUAG Web page[4] on the company's rifle ammunition, including the GW90 series.

** it is very possible that the rifle be advertised as a 5,56mm weapon in foreign countries to comform the would-be buyers with the idea that they will be able to fire standard and cheap 5,56 ammunition with it. Therefore...

*I would think that it is safe to assume that the rifle is in 5,6mm before having more substential facts; substential facts of which, may I remind, you have brough nothing more here than lengthy rants about the Founding Fathers of some foreign country. Note that I have no need to introduce the "moral and intellectual bankruptcy" of anyone in my reasoning. Note also that I will, as will CyrilleDunant, make actual and first-hand inquiries to acertain the matter -- rather than engage into wishful out-of-place rants.

I have repeatedly provided robustly branded and reliable citations (authored and promulgated by the manufacturer) on this matter. Please see below. Consider that RUAG sells its products in these United States, the world hotbed of tort law insanity. Do you honestly think that they would advertise and sell 5.6 mm ammunition as readily interchangeable with 5.56 x 45 mm (Remington .223 caliber) cartridges where such rounds would undergo catastrophic failure (i.e., they would blow up in the receiver) on a consistent and reliable basis? Do you know anything about how firearms work?

* One last thing about the "moral and intellectual bankruptcy behind gun control" (I assume it is safe to assume that this is intented for me) : I am neither pro or contra "gun control", because this is not an issue in the country in which I live, precisely like in Switzerland. It is your failure to understand this which makes your understanding of the problem completely absurd, and your so-called "contributions" totally worthless. Rama 17:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the physical characteristics of the SIG 550, please see the manufacturer's branded Web site.[5] Regarding the Gw Pat 90 round, please see that manufacturer's branded Web site.[6] By Rama's lights, of course, this note is a "rant."

Regarding the moral and intellectual bankruptcy implicit in gun control and repeatedly demonstrated by its advocates, there is the observation that simple ignorance is always perfectly excusible (and is eminently remediable; one simply has to seek reliable verification of the facts pertinent to any particular matter). People who repeatedly deny readily verifiable factual information, however (absent the demonstration of diagnostic criteria reliably congruent with the diagnosis of a psychotic condition), are simply lying.

On the basis of repeated examination of gun control literature (including the self-admittedly flawed publications authored by Kellerman et al in The New England Journal of Medicine and in J Trauma as well as the utterances of such gun control advocates as Bellesiles on the subject), I have yet to be presented with reliably supported evidence-based assertions that justify government interference with the individual right to acquire, maintain, and carry firearms as effective means whereby one may exercise that right to self-defense which is an inescapable corollary to the right to life itself. To say the least, I would expect persuasive fact-based assertions on such a pervasive public policy issue at least as robust and thorough as those supporting an antiretroviral regimen or a surgical technique. Regrettably, there appears to be nothing underlying the gun control argument other than ill-informed wishful thinking fumbling in search of something that can masquerade in lieu of fact.

If I come to the subject with a natural and entirely explainable tendency to view the "default state" - i.e., that it is not only personally but politically desirable that the private citizen be held involate in the exercise of his/her right to keep and bear arms - it is simply that the burden of proof regarding the efficacy (indeed, the viability) of victim disarmament is entirely upon the shoulders of those advancing this radically new and historically hazardous proposition.

And in this forum, thus far, none of those voicing opinions in contention with my own have even made a serious attempt to provide support on that central point. In this light (and with the intent "to improve the article Gun politics in Switzerland on Wikipedia"), would it not appropriate for those insisting upon censorship to publish at the head of this Web page a notification to the effect that the neutrality of this article is disputed?

Indeed, the factuality of at least one the assertions upon which you insist is most certainly - as I have demonstrated here - such that neither of you appear to know as much as I do about firearms. And my principal proximal experience with such weapons is almost exclusively confined to the assessment and emergency management of gunshot wounds. You don't make a very credible showing.

"Nombre: 50 5,6mm cartouches 90 pour fusil, Cart 5,6mm 90F."

And if you had cared to read the other links provided as reference in Gw Pat.90, you would see that this ammunition is also labeled as 5,6mm [7] and [8]. You can also see on these photograph, for instance, that the official label is 5,6mm. This all is exactly what I said above.

As for the rest of your rant, I am sorry but I can't remotely see the connection with the subjet at hand, which is the fireams policy in Swiutzerland, not in your head. Rama 20:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the Gw Pat.90, you're citing an RUAG press release while I have previously cited (via the company's online index[9] page) the actual Web site describing the specific product.[10] The manufacturer's English-language product brochures on their "P" ammunition line[11] and their .223 Rem ordnance ammunition[12] are immediately available to you in PDF. Congratulations. You've caught the RUAG public relations department in a factual error.

You might be interested to know that RUAG has done a substantial update of their Web site (available here[13], whence you can find both English[14] and German[15] language Web pages describing the GP90 ammunition produced for the Swiss military.

It's 5.56 mm (or .223 Remington), not 5.6 mm. If you were a "shooter" (or actually knew anything about which end of the weapon whence the pointy end of the bullet exits), you'd know that a cartridge containing a slug of 5.6 mm in diameter cannot be fed into a firearm chambered to accept 5.56 mm x 45 mm cartridges, and you might pursue factual verification far more vigorously (and with far less stubborn blindness) than you persist in demonstrating.

Yes, this is a very good point. It actually proves that this ammo is 5.6. 'cause it just won't work in a M16. (try it out, you'll stop bothering people, then...) CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Pertinent to your other reference,[16], you're citing a page from a private individual's Web site,[17] not the more reliably branded Internet promulgation of the manufacturer.[18]

Are you even familiar with the concept of branding as it pertains to online research? When I use the Web to cite an article from a medical journal, I make use of reliably branded Internet information sources, such as the National Library of Medicine's Medline service and/or the journal's own World Wide Web site to verify the content and citation data pertinent to that article. When dealing with the intellectual property of a specific manufacturer - such as Swiss Arms AG or RUAG - it is critically important to rely on the accurate citation of that manufacturer's own statements regarding their product or service. In this case, I've applied the same standard of caution and responsibility I would exercise in the citation of a pharmaceutical manufacturer's current product labeling in a particular government jurisdiction.

You, by contrast, demonstrate a lack of fastidiousness and intellectual rigor combined with precisely the sort of pig-headed refusal to seek (or acknowledge) objective verification in a point of argument that so consistently marks the advocate of gun control and other government policies breaching the exercise of individual rights. You do nothing whatsoever to shore up even the illusion of credibility upon which your position in this exchange relies.

1) Can't you stop for just one second with your American petty politics ? We don't give a damn about your Second Amendment, this is the page about Switzerland !

Point taken. Pertinent to firearms law and custom in Switzerland, please see comments you have made above, to which I have replied without any demonstration of response on your part. In particular, you claim that I have no understanding of the law in Switzerland, and yet you fail to cite statutes contrary to my understnding of that law. You've long since begun to sound like a compulsive participant in a life lived as a Monty Python skit.

I did not say this; that comment was made by CyrilleDunant. Rama 07:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. An honest mistake.

Well, inasmuch as we can admit that thinking that you can defend yourself with a gun in any circumstances is not in the least frowned upon by anyone is an honest mistake...CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

2) I know that we have contradicting informations about the calibre of the bullet this is not the question (I have found sources saying 5,56mm myself). The question is why the website of RUAG, the ammunitions boxes of the army and the manual of the rifle all say 5,6mm.

Contradicting? Indeed! Let's see, you keep citing a private individual's Web page and an out-of-date manufacturer's press release, and I've provided you with links not only to technical specifications published on RUAG's older Web site but also Web pages on the manufacturer's entirely new replacement site.[19] I've also given you functional URLs leading to the Swiss Arms AG Web page[20] on the SIG 550. I now gift you with a link at which you will find access to not one but two English language PDF versions of the SIG 550 manual.[21] Guess how both versions characterize the chambering of the weapon? Do you want to get into a different argument now? Perhaps something about your knowledge of the proper position of Phlogiston on the periodic table?

WHAT ABOUT THE BLOODY ARMY MANUALS AND THE BOXES ? WHAT SORT OF DOCUMENT DO I HAVE TO STICK IN YOUR FACE SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING ? Rama 07:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Any online link to the Army manuals you keep mentioning would do. I have (as you have seen) found manufacturer's manuals online. If Internet availability of official Army publications is lacking, even information on how a copy of such a manual might be obtained would be welcomed as an honest of your good intentions. Thus far, the overwhelming preponderance of open-source reference information that can be readily located through routine search engine use confirms that the weapon in question (and the cartridges manufactured specifically to facilitate its adoption by the Swiss military) were indeed designed to confer the advantages of the lighter weight and lower recoil of a 5.56 mm selective-fire long arm without the disadvantages implicit in creating a special 5.6 mm weapon that would severely limit sales of the rifle, its derivatives, and RUAG's GP90 ammunition on the international market. The same can be said for the ammunition boxes. Nothing escept the single press release on the old RUAG Web site (to which you continuously refer) can be found to speak of GP90 ammunition in 5.6 mm diameter, and nothing whatsoever on the new RUAG Web site confirms the existence of any 5.6 mm rounds in any of their product lines.

They have designed a new ammunition anyway. Swiss manuals are not availbale online, as far as I know, and I don't have one handily, but you have several high-resolution images of ammunition boxes right under your nose. Why the bloody hell would I be inventing all that, do you really think that it is fun to discuss that with you ? Rama 08:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I've seen the photograph to which you refer, but I've not been able to locate any sort of corroboration anywhere. For reasons I've mentioned, the adoption of an assault rifle chambered in such a damned odd caliber simply doesn't make sense. (Please bear in mind that in medicine as in science, the sound of discovery is something along the lines of "Jeez, that's funny...").

I fully appreciate the Swiss military's desire to field a weapon with a ballistic profile compatible with the shooting ranges designed for their earlier 7.62 mm long arm, the SIG 510. But that could readily be accomplished within the 5.56 mm caliber through design specifications in other characteristics of the projectile, the propellant, and the SIG 550 rifle itself. I've just sent an e-mail to RUAG to seek clarification directly from the manufacturer. I'll let you know what I find.

No. Actually, you cannot. The SIG was (a new sniper rifle was just introduced) also the standard army sniper rifle (with optics). With standard ammo. The design is simply not the same. It just happens to be very near.CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be exceptional in the extreme for any national command authority to specify the adoption of a standard-issue firearm like the SIG 550 in a decidedly non-standard caliber. In addition to the international marketing handicaps mentioned above (and the Swiss have always been conscious of the advantages of foreign sales in defraying the costs of their own domestic armaments purchases), there is the fact that non-standard chambering would put them at a terrible disadvantage if, in extremis, they should need to purchase ammunition on the international market and 5.56 x 45 mm NATO was the only gunfodder they could find.

And of you could spare us neverending rants, stick to the subject and avoid wild guesses about my personal life, I would be keener to actually read your comments in the future. Rama 05:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Machts nichts. For some people, the inability to refute a sustained and well-supported contention automatically makes it a "rant." And your out-of-left-field blathering about Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" (above) was not? Delightful.

if you contiune like this, this page will be archived and your comments ignored. Rama 07:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You are, of course, a system administrator empowered to censor in this forum. To whom are you responsible?

Appenrently, to common sense...CyrilleDunant 15:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not a forum, this is a talk page. Its purpose is to discuss possible improvements to the article, not political views. Here for instance, the most constructive part of your comments should be at Talk:Gw Pat.90. Rama 08:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I use the term "forum" to describe any virtual location online in which opinions and information can be exchanged. It's a holdover from BBS participation twenty-odd years ago. If you don't mind, I'll keep to this site for the nonce, at least until I've resolved the questions involved in this technical matter to a degree of certitude much higher than that presently obtaining. After that, if the facts prove that the photograph of that ammunition package is not an accurate reflection of the GP90 projectile's diameter, there will be a bunch of corrections to be made, here and elsewhere.

Now that's a good idea (what was I saying a gazillon lines above ?) Rama 09:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Geez, some pretty angry people here. Although I have never been able to get ahold of any 5.6 ammo, the bullet is most likely a simple .224 caliber projectile as seen in most small bores in that range. Why would Switzerland manufacture something else? I personally do not know if the actual cartridge case dimensions of 5.6 and 5.56 are identical, but, the argument that the "bullet won't fit down the bore" is ridiculous. I've been shoving .224s down .22-250s, .311s down .303s, .224s down .223s/5.56s, and keep in mind that .30-06 and .308 have an entirely interchangeable projectile, even if the designations would make you think otherwise. What do you think goes into a 218 bee, or .219 Zipper? Also, the 5.7X28 uses a .224, the 5.6 Savage high power uses a .224, and many older surplus rounds show large deviation in size- reportedly, much Pakistani .303 ammo can vary as much as .007 inches. .45s (Of many different types) can handle several sizes- I've used from .452 to .454. Very rarely, it seems, do the actual designations of the cartridge match up perfectly with the size of the bullet. I think it's pretty obvious that the 5.6 Swiss bullet, if not the case, is interchangeable with that of the 5.56. Also, I'll be pushing some nice .308 (7.62, mind you) bullets down the bore of a 7.5 Swiss before long, if my dies will show up sometime soon. None of my like minded friends have had any problem with such.

Calibre and Cartridge Designations

To anyone who waded through all this stuff some of it very accurate and some extreamly argumentative and technically clueless. An Army's military designations of it's own ammunition may not agree with civilian designations of the same cartridge. i.e. US designation of cartridges for older M-16, M-16A1 rifles was "Cartridge, Ball, 5.56 mm, M-193". Note that there is NO mention of the cartridge length in millimeters. That 5.56 x 45 stuff is for technical comparison and is very nice to have in a list, but doesn't denote actual commonly used designations -- military or civilian in every country. If the Swiss want to round off the designation to 5,6 mm who's to question that? Besides that, it's common in German speaking countries to round off some measurements to one decimal place. They aren't a member of NATO, nor the NATO military standards. It's not changing the actual dimensions of the cartridge, the weapon's chamber or bore.--TGC55 08:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both parties are correct and incorrect. The 5.6mm and 5.56mm ammunition types both exist. From what I understand, this ammunition was designed specifically for the weapon in service. It would be incorrect to claim (as the poster above did) to claim this type of ammunition is the exact same as 5.56x45 NATO. However, they are both the exact same thing (well, not exactly). The 5.6mm round in question is interchangeable with 5.56mm ammunition, just as 5.56 ammunition is interchangeable with .223 Remington. They are not identical, but similar enough to be interchangeable. 5.56x45 NATO would be usable in the issue weapon. In Switzerland, the ammunition type used should be designated as 5.6mm as that refers to the ammunition designed in companionship with the rifle. Outside of Switzerland the ammunition type is advertised as 5.56mm because that is the ammunition (5.56x45 NATO) that most people outside of Switzerland will be firing out of it. This is likely why one can find manufacturer information claiming both (or either.) Hope that clears some of the confusion up. Dogabutila (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics of these two cartridges, which are actually covered in 5.56×45mm NATO, but within the M16/AR-15 .224 caliber bullet class, there are multiple different chamberings that are somewhat interchangeable, but not completely. The MILSTD 5.56 mm cartridge is based on the SAAMI specification .223 Remington. The CIP specs (European) are slightly different as well. There is also a chambering that is designed to safely accomodate both 5.56 and .223 called a .223 Wylde. I believe it does this by having a slightly longer than spec freebore/leade. Caisson 06 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There are several differing loadings of 5.56mm ammo. Over a dozen between various nations in fact from 55gr to 77gr. Ball to tracer to specialty AP and open-tipped match rounds. Swiss 5.6mm ammo meets SAMMI specifications for case length and diamter and projectile diameter (.224 inch in diameter). Several years ago, a large quantity of Swiss 5.6mm ammo was sold in the United States. Other than being a guilding metal plated steel jacket projectile instead of an all copper one, there was nothing unusual about the ammo compared to the plethora of other 5.56mm loadings. It was noted amongst shooters for its exceptional accuracy. The whole 5.56 vs 5.6 thing is nomenclature minutia. It's design falls entirely within the scope of various 5.56mm ammo loadings. The two are readily interchangable. It is the same caliber. 107.4.166.57 (talk)

Language and intro

The introduction should be re-worked a little bit; it goes too quickly, too deep and too specifically into the subject of military weapons.

It think that the plethora of German words here and there should simply go. German is not the only language of Switzerland, and since I think it impractical to label all terms in German, French, Italian and Romanche, I would suggest simply dropping them, possibly linking from the English wording for terms like Landwehr. Rama 06:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Military weapons are the primary weapons that are in the Swiss civilian community. Hunting weapons and other civilian weapons are just not that common.--TGC55 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

German is the language of the majority of the people in Switzerland. I think that some if not all of the terms have been translated into English with the German language terms left in parenthesis. Romansche is not a required Swiss language as far as I know - German, French and Italian are required languages. --TGC55 05:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The accuracy of the intro could be improved in my opinion:

• "The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training." 65% of the conscripts actually undergo the training, the rest is deemed unfit for military service (http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/vbs/de/home/documentation/news/news_detail.43431.nsb.html). The 22% of non-swiss residents of Switzerland are not conscripted.

• "In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations." I suspect readers not familiar with the Swiss political conditions will be mislead by the phrase "political opposition". There is nothing comparable to the opposition role of most countries political system in Switzerland, all 5 significant parties from left to right are in a coalition since 1959. The pressure for tighter regulations has in fact led to several changes: The military ammunition is not kept at home anymore (ammunition can be bought at gun stores though) and guns can voluntarily be handed over to the army depots for storage free of charge. As stated in the article some changes have been due to the Schengen treaties. Thus I think a sentence such as "Regulations on ownership and sale of guns and ammunition have progressively become stricter." would be more appropriate. -- 84.75.45.49 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• "The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training." That was the case 25 years ago. Now, the number of conscripted people have shrinked so much that it gets closer and closer to a voluntary service. It's very easy to be invalidaded out and a lot of youngsters make the most of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caïus Gracchus (talk • contribs) 15:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Landwehr/Landsturm?

The section "army-related arms" mentions that Swiss conscripts stay in the Landwehr/Landsturm until 42 or 52. Now I am by no means an expert in the field, but nonetheless Swiss of military age, and this assertion strikes me as odd at the very least. I was under the impression that these reserve denominations were done with ages ago, and I have certainly never been told that I shall serve until 52! Does anyone have more information on this? JREL 20:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be Swiss of military age and may have served at Recruit School and further training and service and so on, but you currently are a resident of the United Kingdom and I strongly suspect you have deregistered from your community (Gemeinde) as a Swiss resident and consequently have taken some form of seperation from the Army and turned in your equipment. And yes, I understand that if/when you return to CH you are subject to completion of your remaining training time. However, as following post indicates, there was a big change to the service obligation about 1995 or so (is 10 years -- "ages ago"?) and the lower ranks are completing their service in their middle 30's. BTW, there are much better places to get this kind of information than a non-officia English language www site. See here [22] for the Confederation Defense, Civil Defense and Sport Department. TGC55, 0855 Z, 25.5.06

There was a modification called Army 21, also there were some modifications to the law, i'm no expert either but some of the facts in the article are old and irrelevant by now.

The Terms Auszug, Landwehr and Landsturm were used in the Swiss Army till 1995, when the Army Organisation dating from 1961 was replaced with a TO from 1995 (called Armee 95). In the Model 61 army, Auszug were soldiers aged 18-32, Landerwehr aged aged 32-42 and Landsturm 43-52. There were both "pure" age class units and age mixed units, so the system is not easily to describe. And as noted, the used of any of these terms in a concurrent wiki article is inappropriate. -- Nik

Corrected spelling of word: 'issuance' (previously incorrectly shown as 'issueance')-- Dano1125

Black Powder

I have a hard time believing that switzerland is the only country in which it is legal to produce one's own black powder. First of all, using 'country' in this context is slightly problematic. 'State' would probably be better. Take Somalia a few years ago: lacking a government, or any apparatus of state, the country of Somalia was a place where it was not illegal to manufacture black powder. There were no laws. Perhaps the author meant Switzerland was the the only EU state to allow black powder manufacture? There should at least be a cite on this.

Switzerland's not an EU state! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.35.31.33 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Army Ammunition Reform

Gun "control", so to say, has been a much-discussed topic in Switzerland as of late. This past week the parliament approved of new regulations which "require" that army ammunition be stored at the barracks and not at home -- a major change from past policy. The law itself seems to be rather complex, but this was still treated in the Swiss media as a major alteration of the law.

I wasn't sure if this belonged in this entry or not. Here is a link to news stories in German from Zürich's two main newspapers (Tages Anzeiger and Neue Zürcher Zeitung). [[23]] [[24]] For those who cannot speak German, here is an English article from the NZZ. [[25]] Ami in der Schweiz 17:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting numbers

Police statistics for the year 2006 records 34 killings or attempted killings involving firearms, ... Some 300 deaths per year are due to legally held army ordonnance weapons, the large majority of these being suicides.

I can't say that the 300 figure is wrong, but if true, it means that "large majority" is a gross understatement. If one includes suicides in "killings", then the figure is flat wrong, unless 2006 was a *very* abnormal year. Can anyone confirm the 300 deaths per year figure? -- 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, (a) 'killing' is used for when a person attempts to intentionally kill another person (wether they finalize the killing or not is not important in this figure), counting 34.

Now a somewhat 'unrelated' figure states 300-some deaths caused by a personal issue weapon (or firearms in general), this includes but is not limited to: Intentional killing a third party, accidental killing of a third party due to negligence or mechanical failures*, accidental killings of oneself due to negligence or mechanical failures* and intentional suicide. Out of those 34 killings or attempted killings, some contribute to the deaths related to (former) personal issue weapons, as they were commited with one of those.

(* I have yet to hear of such an incident which cannot be related to some sort of user negligence)

I hope this cleared up things a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrieger (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

True, but suicides are always a misleading statistic. If someone was going to kill themselves, the way they did it shouldn't be used by anti-gun lobbies in stats. "Gun deaths" are different from "gun killings,"but people hear some 11,000 killed a year in some country by guns. They don't report on what percentage is suicide. That's the important part of the statistic. A person killing himself with a gun he owns and has registered is technically illegal (you can be arrested for attempted suicide,) but not a gun "killing" per say. I just want to make this article fair. Sometimes it takes one point of view to notice the other point of view's POV pushing. I want the "gun killings" statistic there, not the "gun deaths." I know how liberals use stats to con people in the anti-gun lobby. I saw "Bowling for Columbine" (forced to for school.)PokeHomsar (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Airsoft

Hello

I was interested to read about this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

It included 'airsoft'as well. Can someone tell me in what way airsoft will be affected?

(86.169.247.19 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC))

Airsoft guns are subject to gun laws and regulations due to high similarity to real guns (since Waffengesetz of 2008). Therefore they may not be carried nor used in public. Airsoft games must be organised in restricted area and police must be advised. The purchase is free to adults (18yo) (must provide a copy of their ID) except for a few nationalities (citizen of countries ongoing armed conflicts, so they can't buy a gun and send it to their relatives as it is in the US-Mexico). Schalabaladindong (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

stale material

This article has a lot of outdated material. 75.236.238.77 (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The first paragraph states that all soldiers are issued 50 rounds of ammo, and ref. 9 indicates that is no longer the case except for 2000 special forces. Unless someone posts an objection, I intend to correct this. John Comeau (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only unstable but a little biased--"The American style 'Gun Culture' is not in evidence in Switzerland" is one clear example — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.22.35 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What is up with the image?

Some sort of editing/pre-processing? Might be distracting.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Firing_range_HDR.jpg 88.159.72.240 (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ammo from Range

It is stated in the article twice that according to Kopel that although legally the ammo bought at a range must be used at the range, "the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed." This is a bare assertion made in a magazine article from 1990. If this was and remains true a better citation should be used to provide the details of to what degree the rule on ammunition use at the range is followed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.32.239 (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime rates vs other countries?

Should the article maybe have a section for crime rate vs other countries? I've seen it mentioned on the web that "switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world due to it's unique stance on gun control".

I couldn't get a grip on the truth of that position at all by reading the article. --Meepdeedoo (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

wiki picture displaying illegal behavior

I deleted this picture:

A militiaman with his service weapon slung over his shoulder.

The article correctly states: "the transport has to be direct". Doing errands while transporting your army rifle is illegal. Therefore the picture shouldn't be used in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminKay (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What politics?

The article discusses laws and regulations concerning firearm ownership, trading and use and abuse but doesn't even mention actual politics - does a significant anti-gun lobby even exist? It should be titled Firearm law in Switzerland or something similar but not include the deceptive term "politics". Roger (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes such a lobby exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_for_a_Switzerland_Without_an_Army BenjaminKay (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

From the article it looks like they are anti-military, not anti-gun as such. They don't seem to explicitly oppose civilian gun ownership, shooting sports, hunting. Either way my point is that the title of this article is incorrect because it does not discuss gun politics as such. Roger (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

See Bullet Counter Points: The Truth About Guns in Switzerland. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

German WTF, US gun control debate entanglement

Note. This section was moved from the top where it had been incorrectly placed.

The article is liberally sprinkled with German words giving an impression of expertise, but Switzerland has a multitude of languages and Swiss citizens (and recruits) not talking German neither use nor know these words. In addition to being gratuitous and possibly plain wrong, the affectation of using German words in the English-language article is insulting to them.

Given how the intention of the article can't help but being entangled with the debate on US gun control (see the rants below), one thing needs to be stressed further: to the overwhelming majority of army-incorporated Swiss citizens - who aren't volunteers but are drafted - the care of a firearm imposed on them outside the days of service is a nuisance rather that an asset. This of course contrasts with the case of purchased guns and makes the comparison/statistics quite misleading.

178.238.167.236 (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Percent of households with handguns

See: Bearing arms in Switzerland. Quote from that page:

Strict legislation in Switzerland has made it extremely difficult to obtain a license to bear arms, and the trend is moving towards even stricter laws. For information purposes only, 400 people had a license to bear arms in the canton of Geneva in 1998. Only eight "survivors" still have authorization today. Understandable when you realize how little violent crime there is in Switzerland.

The following source indicates 10.3% of households in Switzerland possessed handguns in 2004 or 2005. Is there more recent info? The quote higher up seems to indicate that handgun ownership may be falling. The percentages in table 18 linked below are by household.

• Table 18 on page 279 of Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective, by the International Crime Victims Survey. Table 18 heading: "Ownership of firearms and handguns in countries and main cities (percentages). 1989-2005 ICVS and 2005 EU ICS." From the report intro: "A large portion of the latest data in this report comes from the European Survey on Crime and Safety (EU ICS), organised by a consortium lead by Gallup Europe, co-financed by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Technology Development."

• Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993. By Lydia Saad. October 26, 2011. Gallup report. "Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period."

People also want reliable stats in order to compare household handgun stats by country with homicide rates by country. See chart to the right and List of countries by intentional homicide rate.

In 2011, 72% of the 8,583 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns. Source: Expanded Homicide Data Table 8 - Murder Victims by Weapon, 2007-2011. By the FBI (U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation). --Timeshifter (talk) 08:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Switzerland does not have a standing army"

I request this be removed as Switzerland does in fact have a free standing army. They do not rely on a national militia, that is a terrible rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.181.159 (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Conditions under the 1999 Gun Act

I'm changing where it says "hunters do not need one [a gun permit] for buying typical hunting rifles" to read "hunters do not need one for buying typical bolt-action hunting rifles". Hunters still need a permit for semi-auto hunting rifles. Freddiefreelance (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Freely" available ammunition

moved from my talk page, since it more suitably placed here -- ZH8000 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"I was considering leaving an edit warring warning here, for your recent edits to Gun politics in Switzerland. While I think you broke the WP:3RR, I don't think that was your intention.
I added a reliable source, as you requested, and slightly altered the wording of the info in question [26] to comply with the source. I would encourage you to restore this info to the article, and take it to the talk page if you wish to pursue removal (where I'd gladly discuss it with you). Since it was in the article, it should remain until consensus is reached to remove it, as there is disagreement.
—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)"

Godsy, that was a wise decision, since your reference do not support your message. Besides that, Mdme Bachmann wrote a very tendentious (and short) article without a real factual basis. Mdme Bachmann did not even a good job, at least. But here comes the facts:

• You added the sentence "Ammunition capable of being used in an issued weapon can be privately purchased and held." to the chapter "Storage of military-issued ammunition" while providing this citation.
• First of all, while this is true for weapons of somebody who owns a gun without the need to hold a weapon acquisition permit, or for weapons the owner has a weapon acuquisition permit for, and only for ammunition of this weapon, it does not belong to this chaper, since otherwise you connotate that this is also valid for ammunition of military rifles. That's simply wrong and against the law.
• Secondly, the lawful rules are described in the previous chapter "Buying munition", and they are valid for all kind of ammunition and for everybody.

Consequently, I deleted your entry (for the second time with the same arguments) and enhanced the previous chapter to make it more clear.

May I also add that I live in this country and that Mdme Bachman must live in a different universum, since her article describes a situation I have never experienced in my whole life: Yes, I met sometimes soldiers on their way to their duty with rifles on their back (without ammunition, of course), but this is only a few days during a whole year. Secondly, I truely never met in my whole life somebody who has a gun with him in public (except for soldiers and police)! That would be indeed a very strange situation, I can tell you (At least, I would immediately call the police). IMHO Mdme Bachmann's article is more than tendentious and certainly qualifies for polemic.

-- ZH8000 (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a it of a strawman to mention Bachman. Who cares? If that is material than so are equally tendentious claims as well from US gun control advocates and in the media, that Swiss are not allowed to keep ammunition at home, which is patently false.

That privately purchased ammunition for the military issue rifles can and is kept in Swiss homes belongs in the section because the implication from that section as it is current written is that it cannot

Perhaps the section on military ammo needs to have its sub header changed to "ammunition for the military weapon", rather then removing the obviously important fact that the ammo if purchased by the individual -- including for their military issue select fire battle rifle -- can be kept at home.Carwon (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the text? I doubt so. It is not anymore the case since 2007! -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That only concerns government issued ammo, not privately held/purchased ammunition- "Parliament had issued in October 2007 the Federal Council commissioned to stop the supply of ammunition in the bag recruit schools and to collect the previously handed out pocket ammunition".—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 16:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, that's exactely what the text says. -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly as it stands now the text falsely implies that that all ammo for government issued firearms is not kept at home, when in fact it can be legally purchased by the individual and kept at home. Carwon (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. As long as the rifle is a milita rifle (the holder is still a soldier), and the soldiers does not own another privately and legally aquired rifle with the abritarily same ammunition, he/she is canot legally purchase ammunition compatible for his militia rifle!! -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The gun crime rate is false.

So, I found it very odd that someone edited the article to add the 75% gun homicide rate compared to overall homicide rate and decided to check the official website of the Swiss goverment.

I found this:

http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/de/index/themen/19/03/02/key/02/10.html

There you can download an excel document where the crime and gun crime from 2009 until 2014 is stated. If you downloaded it and check it out, you will notice that the rates are completely wrong.

The real rates are:

15 gun homicides out of 53 homicides. The 40 figure is including attempted gun homicide. So it's certainly not 75% of all homicides!

Also, why not update the statistic with the rates for 2014 since these are already included?

The rates for 2014 are as follow:

• 41 homicides
• 7 were committed with guns

All this information is freely available in that link that I provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorthianator (talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The same thing is occurring with other articles on firearms issues. When current data does not mesh with certain arguments being made, the current data is removed in favor of older data! Carwon (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Prohibited weaponry

In the 'prohibited weapons' section of this entry there is a reference to 'Skidding with armrest'. This is pretty obscure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.195.230 (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Unless explained, this should be removed. Robvanvee 08:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the wrong translation of German: Schleudern mit Armstütze. -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"Outdated stats"?

Hi, can you explain how removing stats from 2012, and replacing them with stats from 2001, constitutes 'removing outdated stats'? Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the stats in Gun politics in Switzerland, though 2011 is still older than 2012. The source you are citing is not in english. Since this is the english wikipedia, please provide additional sources in english that corroborate your source, or provide direct translations in the citation's notes. Thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

moved from my personal talk page -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That's very easy. The previously used reference by gunpolicy.org is only re-published and re-used old data mainly based on two second-hand sources only. These second-hand sources are based on estimations only again(!), but data actually originating from before 2000 and early 2000s. So hardly an adequate source. Please check the source more seriously!

And no, I am sorry there are no better sources than done by National Councillor Peter Hug. And you can count on that he takes them very seriously. But again, most figures are estimations again though much better ones. And I do not know of an english article which is refering them; probably it does not fulfill the authors expectations?

And yes, the carabines Model 1911 and 1931 are years, and model at the same time, of course. What else! -- 19:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I had no involvement in the previous sources. Blik may be a reliable source, but it is characterized as having a political leaning, so it may be necessary to get data from other sources as well. I'm quite certain that there are more sources than just one single Councillor in Switzerland, whom you characterize as being partisan on the matter.

You continue to add editorialized content to the article. That is inappropriate. We don't use personalized editorializing in the article. Please remove it. We absolutely do not use exclamation marks in article space.

Your one source is not in english. This is the english wikipedia. We need sources in english, or the material needs to be substantially quoted in english either in the article, or in the citation notes.

We need a source other than the blick article for the claim that most of the civilian held arms are from 1911 and 1931. Anastrophe (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can remove the "and critic of too loose weapon laws" (but this is fact), if it so disturbing; I thought it is helpful to understand from whom the data comes from and how trustful the source is – you can hardly expect that a critic of liberal weapon laws tries to underestimate the figure of available weapons, doesn't he!? Rather vice versa.

No, you cannot find other sources, since there is no national statistic about this issue in Switzerland. That's another fact. Therefore the repeated term estimations. So you won't find it in foreign sources neither, except when invented or simply republished.

Model 1911 and Model 1931 is no nothing than factual terms and nothing else. Easily checkable even in a foreign (here German) source. Besides: digits look the same in German! ;-)

And you will hardly find other research data, since it is not done, and especially not in English, since Switzerland does not speak English. I am sorry I cannot change it, but I referred to the most serious and trustful source you can currently have.

Just because an Australian, aka English speaking, organisation does use the same inexistant sources, but uses much older, and much less reliable second-hand data, does not make it more serious. Again: Rather much vice versa, I would say. ;-)) -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There are certainly sources in English that have these various data; there are many out there, translations tend to be common. It makes it virtually impossible for editors here on the english wikipedia to verify a source if it's not in english. It is not a wikipedia *requirement* that sources be in english; but you will find that the source may be challenged since it is not independently verifiable.

Does the blick article identify Peter Hug as a "critic of too loose weapon laws"? If so, place it in quotes like that, then it is clearly from that specific source.

I understand that 'Model 1911 and Model 1931' refer to specific generations of weapons; however, even though this is a firearm-related article, we try not to assume that general readers directly understand what can be characterized as 'tribal knowledge' - information that those active within a community are familiar with, but those outside the community may not be familiar with.

I'll repeat that I am not defending (or dismissing) the previous referenced source in any way; the most important factors are minimizing personal characterizations of a source, and verifiability. Anastrophe (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be glad if I could add an reliable English source, but I simply do not know of any, besides the "maledicted", unreliable gunpolicy.org one. And all other news articles (much less reliable) do either refer to GP, either explicitly or implicitly, or says nothing about their sources at all.

Does the Blick article identify Peter Hug as a "critic of too loose weapon laws"? – No, it does not. Not necessary, since he is very well known for this issue for more than a decade. Not to speak regarding his party membership (SP). You would virtually not expect anything else than such an attitude by any SP member. This is obvious to any Swiss reader knwoledgable of Swiss politics, therefore not mentioned in the article. Besides, he is an historian. And he is not National Councillor, but a secretary of the party, therefore quite known to the public nevertheless. I will change this info. My fault!

I added the model of the carabines simply because there are newer versions availbale, of course, and 1911 and 1931 are awfully old, which everybody easily can understand. In Switzerland, military weapons often have their year of production in their name. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your most recent edits. There are some english syntax issues, but I'll refrain from editing for the time being.

I will remind however that exclamation marks (!) are never used in article space except within quotes or other specifically required contexts. Anastrophe (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I am finished, go ahead. Thanks. -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The Blick article is journalism, not a "reliable source". It is, however, surprisingly good journalism, the trick here is in reporting accurately what the journalist is saying. The article distinguishes perfectly well between statistics collected from authorities (i.e. the journalist did some actual research, collecting figures from the various cantonal register, which means their figure of "800,000 known privately registered firearms" is a quotable synthesis). They are also aware that the "800,000" figure, although "official", is compeltely useless, because cantons do not have a unified approach to registers. Some cantons have registers going back decades, while others only have records for the past couple of years. This means that there are reliable statistics on (legal) gun purchase but no remotely reliable statistics on gun ownership. The journalist (Meyer) is perfectly aware of this:

Die Spannweite der Schätzungen ist gross, sie reicht von einer Million bis viereinhalb Millionen.

The article then goes on to quote the gun expert of the Social Democratic party, who comes up with the "2 million" estimate, which Meyer reasonably translates to "about 25%". This is not an estimate with a two-digit accuracy as suggested by the figure "25". It has single-digit accuracy "yeah, it's probably close to two million". This is a low ballpark estimate explicitly attributed to the political left. (which is actually surprising, because usually the left tends to go for high estimates in order to emphasize gun ownership is an endemic problem). This single-digit "about 2 million" estimate in no way supersedes the older (2005/7) estimates of "between 2.3 and 4.4 million". Nobody is saying "the number of guns declined from 3.4 to 2.0 million in the period 2005‐2014". The 2005/7 estimate is "about 2.3 to 4.4 million", and the 2014 estimate goes with the low figure and rounds it to two million, at best implying a slight decrease over the late 2000s to early 2010s. The lower estimate is explained by suggesting that other estimates have underestimated the number of old guns that have (a) been destroyed and (b) sold abroad.

Tl;dr, the Blick article is decent, but it's just a random journalistic offering from 2014, do not use it as a reliable source for anything. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

ZH8000 reverted your edits. I'm not sure why, the content appeared to be clear and carefully curated. In reverted, ZH8000 suggested that you did not discuss your edit first; I would argue that the above comments are clearly an effort at discussion.

I'd like to see the edit restored. It was better quality than the material it replaced, which was written by various editors, not just ZH8000. Anastrophe (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

based on this user's past behaviour (erratic, 3rrvio etc.) I would argue the burden to seek constructive debate based on what I posted above lies on him. --dab (𒁳) 07:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Militia?

I think that term is overused in this article, and I am not even sure if the German term "Milliz" could really be translated with the word "militia". In the anglo-saxon sphere, militia likely infers the brave soldiers under George Washington or other political leaders, when soldiers were quickly recruited, some of them with their own arms to serve. But that is not really how the Swiss Army works, they are drafted, and swear a code to the nation, and not to any sub-group. They obey orders from a centralistic type system and the Swiss Army also employs professional instructors. Maybe because (some) Swiss soldiers have their weapons at home, but in essence it's more a people's army (Volksarmee) than a militia. Again, there are no militia units there that would act on their own or something, and private gun ownership does not always overlap with military rank or position. Occasionally, these terms are taken up by political groups, mostly to the right, outside of Switzerland, and it makes it look like the Swiss are armed to be part of some vigilanti force, nothing is further from the truth (Osterluzei (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC))

Recent revisions

Probably the new version is better on the new EU directive, however, limitations will also be placed, not only on blank firing magazines, but on all firearms that can be converted. So the term "firearm" has been expanded. Secondly, there will also be restrictions on the size of magazines, and some semi-automatic guns that load more than 20 bullet cartridges, in general. Also, there are still exemptions for historical arms etc. but more restrictions on Internet sales, that have not been mentioned. Furthermore, pro-gun groups in CH, as far as I know, threatened with a referendum, but no plans really. (Osterluzei (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC))

I will go into more details later.

The details of the Directive will be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Firearms_Directive#European_Council_vote

The details on the referendum are currently here and I will add them to the article too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Firearms_Directive#Swexit_referendum Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Carrying firearms in public

My edit was recently reverted, under the belief that I had not read the applicable laws. I had, but I and the reverter took into consideration different areas.

In my edit, I considered 514.54 art. 27 abs. 1, the French version of which reads:

Toute personne qui porte une arme dans un lieu accessible au public ou qui transporte une arme doit être titulaire d'un permis de port d'armes. Le titulaire de ce permis doit le conserver sur lui et le présenter sur demande aux organes de la police ou des douanes. L'art. 28, al. 1, est réservé.

Everyone who carries a gun in a public place or who transports a gun must hold a Carry Permit. The holder of this permit must carry it on their person and present it on request to police or customs officials. Art. 28 abs. 1 lists exceptions.

To me, the wording "To carry a loaded firearm in public or outdoors" implies that it is perfectly legal in Switzerland to carry an unloaded gun on your hip wherever you wish, which is not the case according to the above section. There is nothing about the gun being loaded or unloaded, so I sought to correct it. But I grant that such correction does not take into account the law's allowances for regular transport of firearms, which I have incorporated into my newest edit. Pokajanje|Talk 07:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: it is misleading to write about "loaded firearm" only. The Transporting guns section already exists. I made a reference to it. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

25 per 100 guns does NOT come from the Small Arms Survey

The latest estimate by the SAS says there 47 guns per 100 people in Switzerland: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/about-us/highlights/highlight-research-note-9-estimating-civilian-owned-firearms.html

The "25 guns per 100 people" estimate comes from Peter Hug of the SP political party (a known anti-gun party in Switzerland): https://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/waffenkammer-schweiz-so-viele-waffen-liegen-bei-schweizern-zu-hause-id2676118.html

Please revise the article with the correct and truthful information, not passive-aggressiveness against the liberal gun laws in the CH.72.200.118.40 (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The whole Number of guns per capita by country article refers to gunpolicy.org survey for almost each entry. So it seems to be an accepted source. There is no rational reason to exclude it for6 one occasion, just because it does not suits your interests (WP:POV). -- ZH8000 (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The gunpolicy.org stat for 25 guns per 100 people does not come from the Small Arms Survey! See for yourself: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/news/471

Go ahead and try to find me a citation where the Small Arms Survey estimates 2 million guns in Switzerland! You can't! The two million estimate comes from Peter Hug and is the lower estimate of guns in Switzerland. It does not come from the SAS. Enough already!72.200.118.40 (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WV 514.541 Art. 12

Buying guns: According to the article, SR 514.541 art. 12, passed in 2008, amended in 2014, explicitly prohibits the purchase or ownership of weapons to nationals of eight states: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania. I checked the law in German as it stood on 1 July 2016 and there was no mention of any of those countries. https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19983208/index.html 514.54 Bundesgesetz über Waffen, Waffenzubehör und Munition (Waffengesetz, WG) vom 20. Juni 1997 (Stand am 1. Juli 2016) Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You must lookup the correct law (WV, not WG). -- ZH8000 (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph - comparing apples and tube socks

"Firearms legislation in Switzerland is comparatively liberal, more similar to gun politics in the United States"

Legislation is not politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisca123 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That is concerning me also. It seemed to be trying to make a political point on American Gun Control, which would be inappropriate, particularly in the lead paragraph. That's not the topic.GliderMaven (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This article should be in English

The English in parts of this article is something appalling. It has clearly been edited by non native English speaker(s) who clearly do not have the competence to edit the English Wikipedia. I have made a start it improving it (but only a start), but have neither the time nor the familiarity with Switzerland's gun laws to do the job justice. 86.149.136.154 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Editorializing in image captions

This is regarding this revert and previous edits.

@Abatementyogin: Hello again. There are several problems with these changes which will need to be addressed.

Nowhere in the article is it explained that The SG 550 is the most commonly held firearm in Switzerland. It doesn't matter if you know that this is true, it will still need a reliable source. If a source is cited at another article, verify that it is accurate, and then copy it over to this one.

There are at least two problems with the statement There are no "assault weapon" or magazine bans in Switzerland. First, do not use scare-quotes, per MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Either there is a ban on assault weapons (however they are defined) or there isn't. Using quotation marks implies skepticism of the concept, which is not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. Second, this is phrased in a leading way, and the relevance of this information to the photo is not neutral. Using a caption to imply something is a form of editorializing. A neutral caption would be something like The SG 550 assault rifle is the most commonly held firearm in Switzerland. This would convey the point clearly enough without bludgeoning the reader's head with this point. Again, this would still require a source. Ideally that source would also mention that it is an assault rifle.

Finally, WP:PRIMARY statistics, like this link, should be avoided in favor of secondary sources. Using a primary source to imply some comparative conclusion is a form of editorializing, as it risks WP:SYNTH. In this case, I think the point is non-controversial enough that this can stand.

Grayfell (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

After looking into it some more, the article for the SG 550 says that the civilian version is semi-auto only (although that paragraph is unsourced). This version is therefor not an assault rifle. Hopefully whatever source is cited would clarify this. The caption should not imply that the most popular weapon is an assault rifle if that isn't the case. Whether or not it's an assault weapon would be based on jurisdiction, and would also depend on sources. Grayfell (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Reworded to state that there are no semi-automatic or magazine bans in Switzerland. In many countries semi-automatics are banned and there are mag limits. Switzerland has neither and that's an aspect of the law which is quite liberal in comparison to most nations.Abatementyogin (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read the laws correctly Art 5 1 b,c,d!, e.g.: prohibited are "automatic firearms modified to semi-automatic firearms, and their essential components". - And please provide serious evidence for your statements, e.g. about figures such as "most commonly held firearm". 27 guns per 100 residents is by far not a high gun ownership rate; e.g. in Austria it is even higher. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"Prohibited" arms in Switzerland are not really prohibited. They simply require an exemption permit to own. For instance due to the new regulations, high-capacity magazines are considered "prohibited", but to own them all that's needed is for you to be a member of a gun club, a collector, or someone who goes to a shooting range at least once a year which you only have to prove AFTER five years, then ten. Guns per 100 is not the same as percentage of households owning guns. Per this link page 279: http://unicri.it/services/library_documentation/publications/icvs/publications/ICVS2004_05report.pdf Switzerland has the second-highest percentage of households owning guns in Europe after Finland. Approximately 28% while only 15% of Austrians own guns. Lastly Switzerland requires no reason, interviews, inspections, or mental exam to be issued a permit to buy guns. These laws not only make it the laxest in Europe, but one of the laxest in the world.Abatementyogin (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Sources will be needed for all of this, and drawing conclusions based on WP:PRIMARY laws is very poor practice for multiple reasons. Cite a reliable source about this subject, not just convenient examples which support a prior assumption.

Again, any caption for an image must be related to that image, and must also be supported by a reliable source.

This is not Crime in Switzerland, so the comments about the general homicide rate, and any comparative statements about that rat, need to be contextualized by reliable sources. It is not enough that these statistics are supported by reliable sources (although this is important), they must also be relevant according to reliable sources.

Again, conclusions must be made by sources, not editors. To use sources to imply somthing is non-neutral. Cite reliable sources about firearms regulations in Switzerland. If those sources comment about the comparative rate of homicide, summarize what they say, and nothing else. Do not add original research, and do not inject editorializing or personal commentary. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have provided a citation to the weapons acquistion permit on the Swiss government's site that states a reason is not required to own guns. Furthermore if "vast" does not describe the the fact that over 90% of gun deaths in Switzerland are suicides, then what does?Abatementyogin (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, there is not the slightest chance that you can legally aqcuire an automatic weapon in Switzerland; it is fully and non-exclusively prohibited and there is not a single exception for any private person.

And also again, semi-automatic weapons can only be acqcuired very spearingly and only for very good reasons; as already accordingly mentioned in the text. The army rifle acquired by former soldiers is only possible after it has been modified to a semi-automatic weapon with only single shots (VPAA Art. 29 §3). It is simply not possible that someone legally owns any automatic weapon. Full stop. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Completely false. Semi-automatic weapons only require a Waffenerwerbsschein. Here is a site selling fully-automatic weapons: http://waffen-joray.ch/automaten what is required is the EXEMPTION permit which can be found here for Bern for example: https://www.police.be.ch/police/de/index/vorschriften/vorschriften/waffen/gesuche-dokumente.assetref/dam/documents/POM/Police/de/Waffen/gesuch_ausnahmebewilligung_de.pdfAbatementyogin (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

To add to this please read the brochure[27] @ZH8000:, you may learn that you don't actually know the law as much as you claim to and that your "corrections" are actually article vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb15:bf:5d00:893b:ae93:46a2:e931 (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Do not call good-faith changes vandalism.

There are two major problems with the article and neither one of them is being addressed:

• All of this information needs reliable, independent sources. Any commentary will need to be directly supported by a reliable source. This includes comparative comments on how often permission is given to own a specific type of weapon. For example, a pamphlet mentioning that certain weapons are or are not permitted is not a useful source for how frequently exceptions are made. We need a source to say "in practice, this is rarely given", or "in practice, it's relatively easy" or something like that. Not just arguing editors who seem certain they know the idiosyncrasies of this one bureaucracy.
• Whether or not something is true is not the only criteria for inclusion. Being true and accurate doesn't mean that it must be included anywhere it can be slotted in. Putting emphasis on a specific fact that isn't emphasized by a source is editorializing, and is just as much a problem as injecting a personal opinion. It doesn't matter why this fact seems important. It is not up to editors. If you do not understand what I mean by this, review WP:EDITORIALIZING.

Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@ZH8000: has been disciplined and recieved a ban in the past for disruptive editing and false information. Look at his talk page. The citations for guns not requiring a reason to own leads directly to the official application for a weapons-acquisition permit to the Swiss government's site. Tell me, if citations to the federal legislation on the Swiss government's site is still considered not "reliable" than what is? Furthermore the reason I mention the fact that you don't require a reason to own a gun in Switzerland is because this illustrates how Swiss laws are comparatively liberal to the rest of Europe and much of the world. It's the same reason why the article on UK gun laws mentions that the laws "are some of the tightest in the world" in the first sentence. Tell me, why don't you have an issue with that article as well? Is that editorializing too? Furthermore you reverted the page back to ZH8000's edit which falsely claims that permits for semi-autos are sparingly issued, and that fully-automatic guns are prohibited with no exception. Swiss users like @Teuf504: can back up everything I'm saying because it's evident that citations linking directly to the federal legislation are not enough.Abatementyogin (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

They are not good faith changes when they are done again and again without regards to the WG/LArm & WV/OArm. Even when corrections are made with a quote of the law or a link to admin.ch it is changed to fit someone's narrative. For this article's sake please read the law and/or the linked documents. Teuf504 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)