Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday May 23 2019, @02:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the urban-rural-divide dept.

Swiss voters on Sunday approved a measure to tighten the Alpine nation's gun laws, bringing the country in line with many of its European partners despite the objections of local gun owners, Swiss media reported, citing official results.

Switzerland's public broadcaster said more than 63% of voters nationwide agreed to align with European Union firearms rules adopted two years ago after deadly attacks in France, Belgium, Germany and Britain.

The vote Sunday was part of Switzerland's regular referendums that give citizens a direct say in policymaking. It had stoked passions in a country with long, proud traditions of gun ownership and sport and target shooting. Switzerland, unlike many other European nations, allows veterans of its obligatory military service for men to take home their service weapons after tours of duty.

The Swiss proposal, among other things, requires regular training on the use of firearms, special waivers to own some semi-automatic weapons and serial number tracking system for key parts of some guns. Gun owners would have to register any weapons not already registered within three years, and keep a registry of their gun collections.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/05/19/tighter-gun-laws-appear-pass-switzerland-despite-opposition/3731629002/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday May 24 2019, @01:13AM (2 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday May 24 2019, @01:13AM (#846864) Journal

    That's just dishonest framing.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    What we've prioritized is the right to protect oneself. Versus the preference of violent predators for having their prey disarmed and helpless.

    Nah. I mean, I actually agree with that justification, if it were actually what U.S. gun policy was created around, I'd probably be okay with that. I mean, I think it's a flawed premise -- I think most stats on defensive uses of guns are misinterpreted or outright distorted. But if someone legitimately wants to own a guy for that reason, I can understand the argument and wouldn't necessarily stand in the way.

    However, that's not what's driving gun policy in the U.S.:

    --If it were, the NRA wouldn't spend so much time protecting the rights to own massive guns with massive magazines. Who are these people you're talking about trying to "protect oneself" against? Al Capone's goons storming a house with machine guns? And why the need for giant arsenals of such weapons owned by individuals?

    --If it were, why doesn't the NRA and other pro-gun groups advocate for mandatory training and licensing in order to own and operate such weapons? It makes no one safer for an idiot with no training to be armed with a loaded gun. It's very likely such an idiot could end up shooting himself and/or an innocent bystander in a tense situation.

    --If it were, why the strong opposition to gun registration, background checks, etc.? Again, it makes no one safer if law enforcement can't trace the source of a weapon used in a crime. It makes no one safer to put guns in the hands of mentally unstable people or previous violent criminals.

    Let's be clear that the NRA -- which used to be a rational organization promoting gun competitions, training, and responsible gun use -- was taken over in the 1970s by a combination of anti-government loonies and racist loonies worried about armed Black Panthers. That's historical fact. And that politicized lunacy has been lobbying and driving American gun policy ever since.

    Note that I'm not actually advocating for all the restrictions above necessarily. I'm not against gun ownership. But "dishonest framing"?? You've proven to be the master....

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Friday May 24 2019, @01:34AM

    by Arik (4543) on Friday May 24 2019, @01:34AM (#846874) Journal
    "Nah. I mean, I actually agree with that justification, if it were actually what U.S. gun policy was created around, I'd probably be okay with that."

    If you want to talk about what gun policy has been created around historically, well you're talking about taking a tour of the proverbial sausage factory.

    I'm not going to even attempt anything like a comprehensive treatment in this reply, but I'll boil it down to the three largest factors, while not admitting but warning that there are lots of others if you want to do a thorough treatment.

    1. The militia concept. Many of the founders were firmly opposed to having a standing army of any size or shape whatsoever. Even those that were in favor of one envisioned it as a professional core which would 'stiffen' the militia in time of trouble. The militia is every able bodied free man in the jurisdiction, and they're all expected to report carrying their own weapon and ammunition in case of emergency.

    And before you poo-poo that as an outmoded concept, consider that as recently as WWII a large and very professional army, the Dai-Nippon Teikoku Rikugun or Imperial Japanese Army, did a thorough study and concluded that invading the US mainland was suicidal specifically because of the armed citizenry which they believed would render occupation absurdly expensive and ultimate unsustainable. Even an invasion which was initially successful and managed to destroy the organized army and air force would ultimately have ended in the destruction of the Empire, in their professional estimation.

    And since then, how many times have we seen lightly armed guerillas do just that, hmm?

    2. Self defense. It's a fundamental notion of any liberal society that everyone deserves to be defended, and in extremis everyone deserves to be allowed to prepare for that. And don't tell me to carry pepper spray when the gangs have AK-47s.

    This is second to the militia, but it goes way back.

    So there's two, but I promised three, remember?

    Those two work in favor of human rights. The third works against it.

    3. Racism. Specifically, the worry that the lesser folk are arming themselves. This is the origin of virtually every piece of gun control legislation in US history, going all the way back to the laws prohibiting FMOCs (POCs in todays politically correct language) from owning weapons at all, to later laws outlawing first the least expensive weapons (so-called "Saturday Night Special" laws which prohibited inexpensive weapons favored by minorities.)

    Go on man, think for yourself for a moment and quit being a tool.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:00AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 24 2019, @03:00AM (#846916)

    was taken over in the 1970s by a combination of [A] anti-government loonies and [B] racist loonies worried about armed Black Panthers.

    A: debateable.
    B: not even close -- it was the racists who promoted gun control to prevent the Back Panthers from exercising their rights under the constitution as well as their right to self-defense.