Comment by underlines
5 years ago
I'm Swiss. US pro-gun people (ab)use our liberal gun rights to proof their point.
But there are huge differences:
1. Concealed and unconcealed carrying is not allowed. You have to transport your weapon in a very specific way, without ammo etc. Also anyone with a gun in public would trigger a police intervention within minutes.
2. Active military personnel are allowed to stored their gun at home, but almost nobody does that. Those who do get 5 bullets, in a sealed box. They're not allowed to open it, except in war. The seal gets checked every time you go back for service.
3. Storage of legal weapons at home is very strictly regulated. Loaded guns are basically forbidden, ammunition has to be stored separately etc.
4. If you don't have a very clean history, it's almost impossible to get the right to buy guns.
5. Automatic weapons are illegal.
PS: Those "facts" are from my memory, as I don't live in Switzerland anymore. Fellow Swiss users, if there's anything wrong please correct me.
I'd like to add what I think is the most important contributing factor; a sane gun culture.
In Switzerland, every gun enthusiast expected to be a member of one local Schützenverein. While you get to meet some really crazy nuts there, these Schützenvereins are very much interested that there is a space for guns in Switzerland's culture, so they are very considerate about training of handling of weapons, maintenance and gun safety. This creates an environment where it's save to be enthusiastic about gun while still being aware that these are weapons and not just and toy.
I have read that this is how the NRA used to be. Focusing on training and safe practices. Only in the last decades that changed to where we are now.
When I was a teenager, the only gun safety and hunter training classes in my area were organized by the NRA. They were the only classes most ranges and hunting groups would accept, so we all took them. I'm not sure they'd be recognizable by anyone in today's NRA. A lot of emphasis was placed on proper use, and one of those "improper" uses was a gun for intimidation.
My instructor, in a deeply-conservative area of a deeply-conservative state state, was appalled at the idea of "open carry," and our instructional material warned against it as a bad idea. I wanted to look him up a few years ago when people were getting all bothered about Starbucks' firearms policy to see what he thought but he'd passed away a year before.
The NRA is the most recognized name in firearms training. A lot of states only recognize their training courses. A lot of the US gun community is unhappy with this since when we look at the history of the NRA (Negotiating our Rights Away) we see an entity that continually shows no attempt to stop the gross encroachment of 2nd amendment.
https://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/
The NRA is still heavily involved in hunter education, general firearms training and organizing classes for police departments.
In the US there is a good, quick test to determine if a gun range is 'up to snuff'. Such tests are very important, as you don't want to be shooting with wackos or idiots. It tests the range master and their discipline and attentiveness to range users too. It's also important that it's a quick test, so you know to get out of there fast. If the test is failed, you leave and never come back. The test is as such:
Go up to the firing line, turn around, and look for any bullet holes/marks.
I've found all but two ranges of 15 near me that pass this test.
I mostly agree, except for some details. Back when I was of military age, some 25 years ago, it was not unusual to see military rifles carried openly, because each reservist had to attend mandatory target practice once a year, you had to transport your rifle to the shooting range, and many people used public transportation to do so.
Carrying a loaded rifle was illegal, but how would the public know one way or the other?
Back then, storing your army rifle at home was mandatory, and, while those rifles had automatic mode disabled by default, converting them back to automatic took 5 minutes and a screwdriver, with an official, documented, procedure.
Some of this has changed in the meantime. Rifles are not necessarily stored at home anymore, and it's been years since I've seen anybody but uniformed military or police carrying openly.
> Carrying a loaded rifle was illegal, but how would the public know one way or the other?
You're mandated to carry it without the trigger mechanism and without magazine. It's quite easy to spot the difference.
Are you sure? Those rules apply to the storage of rifles, as far as I remember, but regarding transport, the law only says that the weapon cannot be transported with ammo: https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19983208/...
1 reply →
One correction
2. Most active military personnel store their guns at home. The sealed ammunition box doesn't exists anymore so most don't posses bullets at home. Nonetheless, it is not that hard to buy ammunition.
Your fellow Swiss user
1. A Sturmgewehr doesnt' trigger police intervention. I see sometimes people carrying the military assault rifle on a bike or in the tram. Probably tourists/foreigners are shocked but no Swiss would call the police. 3. Not really. Swiss are generally responsible people but the truth is nobody checks this. In Germany, the police comes and checks if you store it in a weapon safe. I have guns and nobody has showed up. However, I store the ammunition in a safe.
In Switzerland, people are properly trained. My father showed me how to use guns (he was a border guard), went to a club and I did military service. It's not as easy as in the US to get a gun (i.e. without paper) but if you take the time and do the paper work, have a clean record you can get a gun without a problem.
> A Sturmgewehr doesnt' trigger police intervention. I see sometimes people carrying the military assault rifle on a bike or in the tram.
While carrying around the government-issued rifle in public under certain conditions (IIRC it's only permitted when you're travelling to/from duty) is perfectly normal, I think what your parent comment was referring to was someone carrying a gun "to exercise their rights", as might be normal in America.
> it's only permitted when you're travelling to/from duty
Or from/to Shootingplace, the law infact say, if you have todo something with you rifle/gun (let's say repair your private one) you have to got strait to that place and strait back home after repair (no coffee break allowed)
Machine guns are actually quite rare in the US. All new machine guns were banned for civilian ownership in 1983, meaning that if you want to get one it has to be one of a small number of pre-1983 registered examples. They also come with some pretty intense storage, transit, and transfer requirements that wouldn’t surprise most Europeans. The end result is that legal machine guns are a rare collectors item, with examples starting at about $5,000 for a low quality sub-machine gun, with automatic rifles costing more than $20,0000.
I’d actually argue that the regulation of machine guns, suppressors, and short barreled rifles has been extremely effective, as it’s extremely rare to hear about any of these items being used criminally.
These differences are real but most probably don't make the difference you expect.
For example, concealed carry holders in the USA (about 5% of adults) are much less likely than the general population to be involved in a crime of any kind, and much less likely to be involved in a shooting.
Fully automatic weapons in the US are certainly more widespread than in other countries, and there are even privately owned artillery pieces and grenade launchers; but these weapons are never used to kill anyone. Eliminating or regulating them further serves no public safety purpose at all.
New York City has similar regulations about legal gun ownership and storage and transportation.
Sounds very similar to the Canadian regulations.