Does Switzerland Require Everyone to Own a Gun? – Mandatory Military Service and Gun Rights in Switzerland
Switzerland doesn’t require its citizens to own guns. In Switzerland, guns are regulated in three classes and there is mandatory military service for able-bodied men.
Here are some other relevant facts on gun ownership in Switzerland:
- Women may volunteer for military service (and will thus have access to training in a state-issued firearm).
- Those declared unfit for service are exempt from service (exemptions are common, especially in urban areas; although being exempted can result in paying a higher income tax in some cases).
- Those who do go into the service are issued a weapon. They can choose to buy the firearm after their service (this is the closest thing to “everyone being required to own a gun” that exists in Switzerland).
- Hunting weapons, self-defense weapons, and “more lethal” weapons are treated differently (each “class of weapons” is treated differently). You can see a basic overview of this on Wikipedia’s page on regulation on weapons and ammo in Switzerland; or, see a full overview on admin.ch’s Regulation on Arms, Equipment for Arms and Ammunition (you’ll need to translate the page into English).
- Background checks are required.
- And, many other rules apply including: the banning of high-powered weapons (part of a banned class of guns for civilians), an ability to disarm citizens, bans of immigrants and criminals owning guns, and other general restrictions and regulations. See more rules below.
The result is, that while gun ownership is not mandatory in Switzerland, both ownership and training are common. The Swiss therefore can be said to have a gun culture focused on responsible gun ownership and collective gun rights for qualifying citizens.
FACTS AND CLARITY ON GUN OWNERSHIP STATISTICS IN SWITZERLAND: Gun ownership is high in Switzerland, at approximately .25 – .5 guns per person depending on what is counted (for example if military owned weapons are counted and/or hunting weapons are counted, the number is very different than if only registered privately owned firearms are counted). Meanwhile, it is roughly accurate to say about 25% – 30% of Swiss citizens own guns even though the exact number depends on what study you look at and what you count. For example the widely cited Small Arms study from 2007 says 26% of Swiss own guns, but does not count military owned weapons or hunting weapons (as many as 75% of Swiss own a hunting weapon).
A video about the gun rules and regulations in Switzerland. This is the best video of the lot; check it out.
FACT: Military issued firearms may be purchased from the government after service, and then the gun is converted to a non-assault weapon (meaning, a fully automatic converted into a semiautomatic weapon). Restrictions can be placed on both the firearm and its ammunition.
BOTTOMLINE: While getting the exact numbers on gun ownership is a bit tricky, the idea that the Swiss are required to own firearms and the idea that all Swiss own firearms easily proven myths.
The Idealization of Swiss Gun Culture. Does Swiss Gun Culture Work?
Switzerland’s gun laws arguably work well (at least in terms of simple metrics like pairing high ownership rates with low gun-related crime), showing that the right to bear arms can be paired with reasonable laws without hampering public safety or personal rights.
However, with that in mind, Switzerland’s gun culture is commonly admired by pro-firearm citizens of other countries for what are arguably the wrong reasons. One might argue that Swiss gun culture works well, not because it respects the right to keep and bear arms alone, but because it takes regulation, responsible gun ownership, and the concept of a well-regulated militia seriously regarding both services to the state and gun control.
Below we discuss the basics of Swiss gun culture. Make sure to check out the videos featuring Swiss citizens explaining their gun culture in their words.
Clarifications on the concept of a well-regulated militia as it relates to the Swiss Armed Forces: The Swiss Armed Forces is a standing army comprised of some active duty soldiers and many conscripts and volunteers (AKA “militiamen”). This has parallels with the militias of the U.S. Second Amendment, in terms of having conscripts and volunteers trained and ready to be called on to secure a free state, but it is not exactly the same as “a militia” (just like the U.S. National Guard is the reserve component of the U.S. Armed Forces, but one wouldn’t call the Guard or Armed Forces as a whole “a militia” despite the Guard’s own parallels). With that said, article 58 of the Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999 literally refers to the Swiss Army as a militia “Switzerland shall have armed forces. In principle, the armed forces shall be organised as a militia” (or at least this is how it reads when translated into English). Thus, like the U.S. gaurd is part of the military, the conscripted militiaman are part of the Swiss Armed Forces (and since they are a trained and ready or “working and well-regulated” militia with “the right to keep and bear,” they also fit well the description of a militia in the U.S. Second Amendment).
FACT: Although firearm related crimes per-capita are low in Switzerland considering the high level of firearm ownership, firearm related suicides per-capita in Switzerland are rather high. Of course in countries where gun ownership are common this would be the case (it is in the U.S. as well), but that doesn’t make it any less noteworthy. A simple place to look at this data is Wikipedia’s “List of countries by firearm-related death rate,” but the data can also be found in studies like “Epidemiologie von Suiziden, Suizidversuchen und assistierten Suiziden in der Schweiz – April 2015” (which, when translated, presents statistics on suicide rates in Switzerland). Looking at data like this can help offer insight into the somewhat subjective topic of “does Swiss gun culture work?”
TIP: Discovering the exact number of guns owned in Switzerland is nearly impossible as they don’t need to register hunting weapons. About 25% – 30% have illicit and registered firearms, and about 75% own a hunting rifle as a reasonable estimate. Learn more at GunPolicy.org – Switzerland.
Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World. Notice the collectivist gun culture displayed in this pro-gun video. The concept is a defense of the state enforced by the state’s rule-set, not personal defense from other citizens or the state. This is the difference between the U.S. and Switzerland.
CONSIDER: In the U.S. we take an individualist stance focusing on our rights to bear and keep arms and our right to self-defense. In Switzerland, one could argue that individual rights come second to collective rights related to a well-regulated militia in defense of the state.
TIP: As you may have imagined the meme contrasting Honduras and Switzerland’s gun laws is wrong on many levels.
Switzerland Gun Regulations
Switzerland is often used as an example by those against gun control laws to show how gun ownership benefits a state.
However, this is often paired with a general misunderstanding of Swiss culture (generally those who use “the Switzerland argument” imply that gun ownership in Switzerland comes with little-to-no rules or with mandatory ownership; which isn’t the case).
Switzerland’s gun laws are rather strict, including three classes of weapons and ammunition with varying degrees of restrictions, mandatory background checks per-purchase, training, the banning of high-powered weapons, an ability to disarm citizens, bans of immigrants and criminals owning guns, and other general restrictions and regulations.
The Swiss respect the right to bear and keep arms, but it is the gun culture surrounding this right and not the right itself which is the key to their comparative success.
CHANGING LAWS: With the above in mind, the Swiss have voted against conscription recently and are currently debating more strict gun laws after a recent mass shooting. Further, the “EU Gun Ban” could affect Swiss gun laws moving forward.
Why Does Switzerland’s Gun Culture Work? – the Bottomline: Although there is no one metric to point to that proves without a doubt that Swiss gun culture works or why this is the case, one could argue that the key to what one might perceive as Switzerland’s successful gun culture (that is high ownership, low gun-related crime) is arguably found in their [what we can very loosely call] well-regulated militia, willingness to enact gun control laws, and the general sense of nationalism and pride instilled in them from their mandatory military service (where the concept of firearm ownership is focused on the collective defense of the state more than the defense of one’s estate from one’s neighbor; that is, a culture focused on the collective defense rather than individual defense). For more, see the Swiss Constitution’s section on the Armed Forces and Civil Defense.
Do all Swiss have guns?
FACT: Only Yemen, America, and Serbia have more guns per-capita than the Swiss.
Quick Facts About Switzerland and Guns
- Switzerland has the second largest armed force per capita after the Israeli Defence Forces.
- Switzerland has long held a posture of neutrality regarding war and conflict. To maintain a strong defense, the Swiss instead focus on maintaining a strong well-regulated militia / military.
- Gun ownership is high in Switzerland, at approximately .5 guns per person. About 25% – 30% of Swiss citizens own guns. Military issued firearms may be purchased from the government after service, and then the gun is converted to a non-assault weapon. Restrictions can be placed on both the firearm and its ammunition.
- In Switzerland, you don’t need a permit for hunting weapons, but you do for other firearms and ammunition.
- Every time you buy a non-hunting weapon you need to get a background check (you can get up to 3 guns at one time).
TIP: See loc.gov’s Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Switzerland for more reading.
Swiss laws are not really that strict, they are basically like Michigan twenty years ago minus the recent registration. Semi-automatics can be freely purchases, it is automatics that can’t be. Those leaving the militia can keep their weapons but the unit armorer converts it to fire semi-automatic only. Our individualistic gun culture works as well as theirs and the Czech Republic. The difference is that we have a gang culture which they don’t have. Since they get their guns from the same black market they sell their drugs, no laws will change that. You don’t define “high powered”. a high powered rifle is a typical hunting rifle like the .30-06 or .270. The more powerful 9.3×62mm is popular in Europe, including Switzerland.
Interesting take. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
It’s obvious an antigun liberal wrote this article…
Well I am a liberal, but I’m a constitution (including the second Amendment) loving liberal.
That said, the goal of this website/article isn’t “promote social liberal values” or “be against guns” it is get “to the facts straight.”
People often try to use Switzerland to back up pro-gun stances of any sort, but they often obscure reality in the process.
The reality is Switzerland has rather strict rules despite their generally LIBERAL stance on guns.
The article tries to clear up the facts. The fact is training and regulations is part of what makes Swiss gun laws work (as far as I can tell from all our research, much of which can be found in the videos and citations; but otherwise on other related pages of our site).
That said, certainly there are more factors to compare if we want to equate Americans and the Swiss. Our cultures are very different outside of our firearm culture, so the full conversation is complex. How does our melting pot and spare landscape with pockets of poverty affect things? How does the NRA affect things? Many questions to ask!
But to your point, I am in no way anti-gun, I am personally for a responsible gun culture… like the Swiss gun culture, whose gun culture and gun laws I personally find admirable. Imagine, they actually embraced that militia aspect of gun rights!
All that though isn’t the point of the article, just my personal view since you asked.
Liberals always think their particular slant on facts are right.
Well I mean people always think their particular slant on the facts is right (AKA their perspective).
It is hardly just liberals.
For example, liberals didn’t send about the meme about gun ownership being required in Switzerland. So that is one example.
If you’re worried about the facts, and from your replies to other comments it seems like you actually are, you should amend “converted to a non-assault weapon” to “converted to semi-automatic version” or something. The term “assault weapon” only describes the physical appearance of the weapon, not the function. You can stick an extended barrel and stock on a hand gun and make it look like an assault weapon, but it will still only fire once every time you pull the trigger. I think that inaccuracy is why a few people are giving you a hard time about being a liberal – lots of anti-gun liberals tend to get that one wrong.
Cool. I will take that into consideration. Not trying to use buzzwords here. That doesn’t accomplish anything useful!
A very well-researched and reported article. Clearly unbiased in intent. Thanks
But I will take exception to those who equated Swiss “well regulated militia” with US Constitution Second Amendment.
The US Second Amendment was not referring to a militia as a formal entity of “enlisted” members, with formal training and regulation. The militia was simply every able bodied man between 18 and 55 or some such ages.
“Well Regulated” had nothing to do with governmental regulations and laws. The term at the time basically meant “properly outfitted” or “provisioned.” They wanted citizens to have firearms that worked when needed, as many citizens of the time had firearms that simply didn’t work.
The proof is simple, aside from looking up the meaning for that era, which does prove my point. The other proof is that there were no federal regulations of any kind placed on firearms or the “militia.” If the framers and founders intent was to put gun regulations in place, they would have. They didn’t.
Well regulated simply meant “working,” not disagreeing with that.
However, to have a working militia requires some degree of standards. If Washington or a state needed to call on a region to put down a rebellion (which they did in the early days like with Shays rebellion), then the militia needs to fulfill a duty similar to a police force or national guard. Seems like that means they would need some basic training and structure.
The Second Doesn’t explicitly say “we should regulate firearms,” but the rules in Switzerland do. Likewise, the Second doesn’t say “the militia must be trained so it can be in working order,” but with our modern police and military that is the case and in Switzerland that is the case.
So good points, but don’t think it detracts from the general takeaway that part of what makes Swiss gun culture work is the structure.
Somebody commented that the United States has the gang culture which Switzerland doesn’t have, but none of the famous mass shooters in the States has belonged to any gang.
Also, Canada has gangs too, and our firearms laws are not extremely strict, but we don’t have nearly the same amount of gun deaths (per capita.)
And El Salvador is a terrible example, just like Venezuela (where I have lived.) Laws exist, but lack of enforcement and corruption completely negates their effectiveness.
Finally, there’s no denying the positive effects that gun restrictions have had on the gun death rate in Australia and Ireland.
We do not have any militia, we do have the Swiss Army, do try not to offend us, after all Switzerland has managed to stay out of armed conflicts for + 300 years now.
Good point. Didn’t mean to imply that the Swiss Armed Forces was a “militia.”
I’ll make sure that is more clear in the article.
Some of the above information is correct, but most of it is the opinion of the writer and may or may not be true.
The only true fact is that Switzerland does not require citizens to own guns, the government issues guns to a large percentage of the population and when they are of age the may buy the gun and many have more than one gun,
I agree that the opinions into why the gun culture works is opinion, while the facts about Swiss gun laws are facts.
I’ll see if I can’t make that clearer in the article.
With that said, anyone who finds interesting studies or articles pertaining to why Swiss gun laws do or don’t work, feel free to comment with them. Would be nice to have more statistics and research to cite in that respect.
The man in the first video is specifically and exactly talking about defending himself against the state.
When he was telling the story about the lady weeping in the Holocaust museum, he said that he promised himself that he would never allow himself to be without a way to fight forces “dragging us away to ovens or prisons”. That was an act of the state against its people, who were rather famously not able to fight back. The right to keep and bear arms had been taken from them…. by the state. Seems very clear.
High powered weapons are obviously not illegal. Every gun he pulled from the cabinet and showed to the camera was a high powered weapon.
Each was also assault an weapon. Unless you are saying that removing the full auto feature makes it no longer an assault weapon.
Right, if the government turns tyrannical, and tries to commit aggression against the citizens, then the militia defending the citizens against tyranny makes sense. That is the other side of the coin. The militia can be called on by a government to defend the state, or in such cases where the state has become tyrannical, defend against it. That is what our founders in the United States thought at least.
Now, in WW2 Germany, guns were not taken from citizens. They were taken from Jewish citizens specifically, and thus those citizens couldn’t fight back (although, I don’t think they could have stood against the NAZI militants at the time even if they had their guns… but we can only speculate there).
Further, the Swiss’s tiered system for firearms is what it is. If you classify something as high powered, but it is legal there, then it is almost semantics. There is a class of weapons and ammo that is generally prohibited in Switzerland and training is needed for higher powered weapons.
Example, Missile launches are generally prohibited, so are machine guns. Meanwhile anyone can go out and buy a hunting rifle, while weapons (and ammo) in between generally require training and have more rules applied to them.
See here: https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/20081148/index.html
Look up Warsaw ghetto to see what a few firearms in private hands can do against an organized mechanized military…
I can just ask my family for the stories (which would be second hand at this point). That said, I don’t recall household firearms being the difference between stopping Hitler’s goons or not, in fact I recall the story being a valiant effort that ended in slaughter.
But that said, I’m all for the Second Amendment (and other such laws), specifically for the concept that citizens and standing armies can defend their country and themselves against tyranny.
He was being sarcastic…
Ah, not always easy to tell the way comments come in without context in WordPress. All comments welcome and appreciate in the input even if I misread it!
Very well explained how in a civilized country this works without an unacceptable amount of gun death per year
The key fact asserted in this article is that an estimated 75% 0f the people have unregistered or
guns for hunting.
Fully agree. It is important to note how the Swiss treat different classes of weapons differently. Lots of restrictions on automatic weapons, but very common for the general population to own hunting weapons and there are very few restrictions on them. A sensible policy in my opinion.
On this date this site is all too relevant.
In the USofA the notion of proper training has gone by the wayside in favor of “arming the masses to the max” in the hopes that a stray bullet will kill the bad guy before he kills 17 students.
Responsible ownership is no longer an NRA priority, monetary profit and political influence are the primary focus.
RIP a.k.a. Robert I. Price
You fail to disclose that the Swiss had no 2nd Amendment like that of the US. And only very recently had no gun control at all. Not including fully automatic weapons of course: ” The first federal gun-control law (hereinafter the Weapons Act) became effective in Switzerland on January 1, 1999. As originally enacted, the Weapons Act brought a gun-control regime that was similar to the gun-control laws of neighboring countries, albeit less restrictive. Between 2004 and 2010, several amendments made the Weapons Act more stringent.” Until Swiss weapons started showing up in crime scenes in Europe they couldn’t of cared less. Now they follow more or less Europe’s lead.
From your bio: “As a FactMyth.com author I consider my gig more like ‘dirty jobs’ than a soapbox speech. I’m not an expert, i’m just a guy with a keyboard who knows how to research and write.”
Apparently you don’t know how to research, as “well regulated” as used in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States means “well supplied.” It had nothing to do with governmental regulation or oversight. Read the Federalist Papers and some history before you spew nonsense.
If you do a site search you’ll see that we cover the federalist papers and such extensively on our site. For one of many examples: http://factmyth.com/factoids/liberty-is-to-faction-what-air-is-to-fire-an-aliment-without-which-it-instantly-expires/
“Well regulated” means “working,” working means roughly “in working order AKA able and ready to heed a call.” To be able and ready one must be supplied (among other things).
Since the militia was allowed for by the federal government and since it was there to be called on by the state and federal government, I don’t see how you can say it has nothing to do with regulation or oversight?
Anyways, the 2nd is just one long sentence. I can read it as easily as you can. For everything else we have to resort to SOCTUS, documents at the time, state constitutions, etc (we cover this on the site). See: http://factmyth.com/tag/gun-control-and-gun-rights/
Throughout the US Constitution, terminology lacks ”definition”, at least to the extent upon which the crafters may have agreed, but much less to the extent, we, the heirs of the Constitution, may agree today. Beginning the 2nd Amendment with ”A well-regulated militia” and ending with ”…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” cries out for definition in the context the current day.
We could start with, for example, agreeing that when granting the government elsewhere in the Constitution the power to ”raise an army”, what the crafters had in mind so shortly after the birth of our nation was to convert (”raise”) the ”well-regulated militia” comparatively quickly into the backbone of our formal standing ”army” in the immediate defense of physical threats to the US by armed entities (May we assume foreign or domestic?) We could continue with unelaborated ”arms”, which in the context of the Constitution in 1789 did not exclude cannon, torch rockets, explosives, etc.
Irrespective of what the crafters had in mind, until today there has been a lot of ”infringement” upon ”the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, but never an explicit connection of this ”infringement” to the people sustaining active membership or participation in ”a well-regulated militia”, which membership or participation may have been ”mandated” or, at least, enabled by their ”bearing” of [whatever] arms they had chosen to acquire without being ”infringed” upon. Does the ”[non]-infringement” imply the obligation ”’of the people” to be in whatever is the ”well-regulated militia” of the day in exchange for their being granted ”the right of the people to keep and bear arms”?
The only way the Constitutional connection of ”well-regulated militia” has ever come close to ”if one, then the other”, the ”other” being ”…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” is the opportunistic, almost instantaneous formation of a ”posse comitatus” (still all male, by the way) by local law enforcement. What these usually gun-owning citizens suddenly pressed into service to support local law enforcement authorities have in common with the ”well-regulated militia” envisioned by the crafters of the Constitution is a substantial stretch. Sheriffs of the Old West and elsewhere to the present day maintain a very broad interpretation of their law enforcement authority under the 2nd Amendment; i. e,, the modern accepted view is their ”posses” are the Constitutional equivalent of a ”a well-regulated militia” for the purposes of pressing local citizens (They do not have to own a fire arm.) into posse service.
If the crafters did not mean that the militia and gun ownership were fundamentally congruent, then we need to amend the 2nd Amendment to remove ”well-regulated militia” so that the right of ”the people to keep and bear arms” is unconditional, although I would suggest inserting the word ”lawfully” between ”to” and ”keep”,
It isn’t an assault weapon until you assault someone with it…. When is everyone gonna get that straight???? If you own a pitbull it’s just a dog but if it attacks someone that dog becomes an assault weapon and you go to jail….. Look it up!!
For sure. Don’t disagree. Think it is semantics where people are trying to say “an automatic or semi-automatic weapon whose primary function is killing; such as weapons one might use in the military currently or recently.” Assault weapon is a bit of a buzzword, I get be annoyed by that. Think it is a bastardization of the term Assault rifle (a term apparently coined by Hitler of all people). I’m just speculating on how the term came into being.
WOW, How awesome to hear a debate of sort’s, actually stay respectful. Everyone here, in the U.S.A that I’ve talked to on line and in person, has gone, “BAT SHH CRAZY”!!! I own a pristine, partly wood crafted 16 Gage pump Shot Gun, she’s so pretty, I just had to name her Priscilla, lol. In my opinion, Gun’s period, are made, for one single purpose, “To Eliminate”, “TO DESTROY’, To demolish, to explode, to blow up. in a nut shell, gun’s are made to kill it, what ever the it is. I really like the law of having to join the militia. I really believe, from my life’s experiences. All who have been in the military, and or study, and dedicate themselves into any kind of martial art’s. Contribute intensely for the greater good, for the right to live free, respect, and strict discipline, with reward, and consequence, are what turn, scared, lonely, angry, sad, disappointed, confused, naive, hot temper, (physically) violent, troubling, juvenile delinquent’s…. Into True, honorable, Strong, focused, disciplined, hard working, protective, fair, trustworthy, loving, and caring, but tough. Intellectual, wise, leader, friend, parent’ partner, co-worker, neighbor, acquaintance, polite stranger. Completely holy, and worthy, Adult American, Human Being.
Thank you for the kind words. The world needs more true, honorable, Strong, focused, disciplined, hard working, protective, fair, trustworthy, loving, and caring, but tough, intellectual, wise, leaders, friends, parents partners, co-workers, neighbors, acquaintances, polite strangers.
Many false statements in this article and anyone saying to check out Wikipedia should be ignored as it is becoming filled with false information every day.
Care to point out any specific statement you are suggesting to be false? I’m fairly confident the article is accurate, if something isn’t, let’s pick it apart and find the right answer.
As for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is sometimes wrong in the way that a brilliant professor is, human and fallible, but probably pretty spot on almost all the time… we shouldn’t paint Wikipedia or the brilliant professor as being untrustworthy due to the 1% of the time they aren’t pretty much spot on, but we should be skeptical and double check all sources so we can get even closer to the truth. In my opinion at least.
That is a long way of saying, I feel like sometimes people use “Wikipedia isn’t always right” as an excuse to ignore facts. Let’s not do that. Not saying you are. Just saying let’s not.
I would like to know what the heck the author means by have their rifle converted a non-assault weapon? There is no such thing! I like what Gary Johnson said they convert them from fully auto to semi-auto. Ahhhhh dang sounds just like the US. According to the authors definition of a non assault rifle is a prime example of an AR-15 good thing all our AR-15’s have been converted to non-assault now all the media can stop complaining!
I believe this is me trying to summarize the fact that they have to be converted to semi-automatic only after service to keep them. That isn’t Gary Johnson making stuff up, that is rather the difference between a weapon that isn’t banned outside the military and one that is.
Consider this passage of Amending Directive (EU) 2017/853 (the EU “gun ban”) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2017/853/oj:
So I get that I said non assault, and that this was potentially not correct (I’ll make it more clear), but at the same time we can confirm that Johnson knew what he was talking about (in this case at least) and that this is rooted in reality.
Not sure if this is a mix of Swiss law and Amending Directive, or is firmly rooted in Swiss law. The problem is there is a gap between when I researched and wrote this and now when you are asking what I mean by that. I didn’t make it up, that is for sure… but can’t fully remember the details of my source.
For more general reading you can check out the following useful Wikipedia articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Firearms_Directive#Amending_Directive_.28EU.29_2017.2F853 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland
Now, I realize that I’m citing Wikipedia, and that sometimes the information is not 100% perfectly accurate. However, it is a really useful source for gleaning the basic concept and finding additional things to research and verify.
YOU are the myth! The able bodied are REQUIRED to serve in the military and they are REQUIRED to have a weapon as part of that service. That’s mandatory gun ownership. We can’t debate anything if jackasses keep lying in the name of truth telling.
Ah, I see what you are saying…. but let us be honest. The meme that goes around does not say:
1. In general Swiss men must serve in the Swiss Army.
2. All service members of the Swiss Army must own guns (here disregarding the fact that the Army itself likely technically owns the weapon).
3. Therefore Swiss men who serve own guns.
If that was the meme, I would agree with it. The meme just says “all Swiss are required to own guns.” That is false.
The logic above, where we denote specifics, is true.
Meanwhile, the meme is too general and is thus false and misleading.
I think this is a fair analysis, no?
Highly misleading editorial.
“Military issued firearms may be purchased from the government after service, and then the gun is converted to a non-assault weapon (meaning, an automatic converted into a non-automatic weapon)”
You can’t convert a automatic weapon into a non-automatic weapon. You can however convert a fully automatic weapon into a semiautomatic.
Gun grabbers lie. There is no clear definition of an assault weapon. It is a made up word by them. They can call any semiautomatic weapon an assault weapon. Then all that’s left is single action weapons.
Guess what thet call them?
Thank you for the feedback.
I had assumed that the difference between automatic / non-automatic and fully automatic / semiautomatic was semantical. I double checked the EU gun ban for reference and I see the term semiautomatic and not non-automatic used.
I see the slippery slope you are talking about though, if assault means fully automatic and semi-automatic, then we run into a problem.
I came at this from the perspective of seeing if this claim that all Swiss must own guns is true, not from the perspective of a gun enthusiast considering the semantics of the gun debate.
Most of the points I make I would think to be correct given my research… but I’ll give you that one. The correct term is semiautomatic not non-automatic or non-assault. I edited the page.
Switzerland does not have a thug culture and the blacks that get infected with it. Helps a lot with keeping the country free of mass shootings despite high gun ownership.
So it is appropriate for the Swiss to have guns because they have taken care to ensure a standard of living for all of their society, while in the US we have neglected a class of people to the extent that they are so impoverished they turn to a culture of violence and therefore our gun culture does not work as well as it does in Swizerland?
If that is the case, I would suggest the answer is found in lifting up the class, not in more or less guns. That said, I don’t think African Americans are statistically the most likely to commit mass shootings. Thus, while you may be onto something with poverty being a factor (so classism, and perhaps even access to mental healthcare due to care being income-based in the states) I don’t think the other point fully works: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
Just wish to place one comment. LEARN WHAT A WELL REGULATED MILITIA IS BEFORE USING IT AS A MEME. Militia is not a military it is not an official branch of service, it is a civilian operated unit. It is there in this case if we were ever to have a overpowering and tyrant like government so we might be able to like we did with King George, overthrow it. Learn before you try to shove your anti-gun shiz down peoples throats.
I don’t think I ever implied what you are saying I implied. The wording doesn’t assume that the militia should be regulated by the Government (state or federal)… it means essentially capable and ordered… but why? Well, so they can be organized by state or federal government if needed, or can stand up to tyrants if needed, or can act as a sort of local police force if needed.
The idea being they should be capable citizens capable of being organized and able to shoot a firearm.
So for example if we have a group of citizens trying to have a Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington might call on militias to put that down (and in doing so would expect for them to be able to you know, follow orders and operate a firearm), or if for example we have King George trying to get up in our business, George Washington might call on militias to put that down, or if we had bandits roll into town then the militia might help there, or if North Carolina tried to invade South Carolina the state might call on the militia, or if the federal government tried to invade Flordia, the state might call on a militia, or if an aliens tribe tried to take Hawaii… etc. Whatever this theoretical case, if a national gaurd / police force / neighbor hood watch / rag tag military unit is needed to protect liberty, then the militia becomes necessary for securing a free state.
Kind of hard to translate perfectly into the modern day, although I might give an analogy by mentioning the National Guard, a neighborhood watch, or the police, because they have parallels with the militias of the second.
It is a mistake to see this all only through the a single lens where the only reason to organize is to stand up to the federal government though (especially given how the 2nd was used almost immediately after the ink was dried).
Further, the issues as they apply to the Swiss are their own beast as covered in the article. I’m only clarifying the position as it applies generally and to the US.
Editor: This was a comment about how the problem with gun violence in America is black Americans and that we needed to address that culture. It was phrased in a way that I couldn’t / wouldn’t post it on our educational site meant for all audiences. However, I want to address the logic instead of deleting it.
The reality is that the data suggests that homicides are higher with black men in America than with other races.
Meanwhile, suicides and mass shootings are higher for white men than other races.
Of course higher does not mean that one group is entirely to blame for any type of violence here (see the stats below, the stats are clear enough).
So men are generally killing people with guns in America, but black men are more likely to kill each other, where white men are more likely to kill themselves and commit mass shootings.
When you consider all these men are American men, it makes you wonder, “what is it about the culture / gun culture of America that is causing this?” / “what is it about human nature?”
Maybe it does make sense to address not only American culture, but both white and black culture for their own unique gun problems, and maybe we can learn something from Switzerland? I don’t know. I do think though the Swiss are onto something with the way they get training and are taught respect for firearms, where in America we seem to have a lot of guns floating around getting in the hands of people who aren’t using them properly.
As far as “militia” vs “the army”, I can tell you my family was very involved in the Revolution back in the 1700’s and I’ve read quite a bit of family history on it. As far as my family was concerned there was no distinction. You would sign up, stay in the army for a short while – even just a few months – go home, take care of business, then go back to the army if needed. That was the militia. The founders were aiming for a “citizen’s army” where all were armed and all citizens participated and believed in freedom and defending the citizenry.
Granted, it may have not always worked with maximum efficiency but it came from the heart and was rooted in the idea of a free people fighting for what they believed. And after all, everything in America at the time was a great experiment. They were stepping out where none had gone before.
From what I understand, our founders were inspired to this idea from visits to Switzerland, although I am sure the basic idea came from their philosophy.
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.
Swiss has a sense of nationalism, love their country, mandatory military service who are qualified, they trust their own people to be armed and accepts some of their imperfection.
In US, the Demoncrats (Former Confederates) are completely opposite, they don’t trust their own citizens to be armed, they refuse to blame the gang cultures, doesn’t believe in mandatory military service, ignores their past slavery segregation history and really into Woodstock and love hippies.
Which is it?
Gun ownership is high in Switzerland, at approximately .5 guns per person. About 30% of Swiss citizens own guns.
About 30-40% have illicit and registered firearms, and about 75% own a hunting rifle as a reasonable estimate.
So I don’t know why I wrote 30-40%. I double checked here and all my data says “about 30%” is right.
I actually did an edit here because I felt like some of this was unclear.
It is 25% – 30% (I’m giving a safe range because the best study is from 2007 and says 26%).
Not all data counts military and hunting weapons. Hunting weapon ownership is 75%.
The discrepancies mostly come from citing different studies, what is counted, and how different levels of firearms are classified (hunting weapons not needing to be registered or really counting there… especially when it comes to the studies and surveys I found).
Hope that helps.
Swiss gun ownership is not too different than US wrt being responsible, trained and not a criminal. Their military required military service (a once greatUS idea) takes care of the background check and training to own a weapon. Every person should have the right to protect themself and their family. A firearm allows almost ANY family member to accomplish this if needed.
Switzerland does not have a Urban element like a US Chicago, St Louis, Baltimore and others.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.