Swiss chose tougher gun laws

[theprestige]

Ok. I will give you the lecture but don't complain about being patronized.

There are no border controls for people between the EU and Switzerland.
Think about what a border is. It is the line between two countries. Each of these countries can make its own laws without regard to the other. That's called sovereignty.
It may be legal for a person to possess a weapon in one country but not in the other. The same logic applies to all sorts of things like narcotics, hazardous materials. Then there are laws about taxes and standards and so on.
Think about this. Maybe one on one side of the border there is weak protection for intellectual property like brand names. Then one needs to intercept the counterfeit merchandise at the border or the brand owner will lose out on license fees.
Or maybe there is less drug enforcement. So drugs are interecepted at the border.
If a country wants to enforce its own laws on its territory then it needs to check whatever comes into its territory for compliance.

The EU and Switzerland have aligned their laws to the point where there was little to do at the border. So everyone could live with giving up border controls.

Unfortunately there has been some gun misuse which caused the EU to implement stricter gun control. Now the open border becomes an issue again. Its more liberal gun laws undermine EU sovereignty.

The obvious solution is to bring back border controls. Would an informed person call that "economic bullying"? Hmm?
As the swiss have now chosen to better control guns, that will no longer be necessary.

The border problem played a large role in the referendum. But there are many in Switzerland who favor stricter controls regardless. Eventually we don't know what the result would have been if the law had been debated on its own merits.

No complaints about being patronized.

This is not the argument given in the OP. I think it's perfectly reasonable take the arguments made and cited as they come. If you wanted me to take this argument instead of the one in the OP, then you probably should have made this argument in the OP.

And of course, "we don't know what the result would have been if the law had been debated on its own merits" is exactly my point: The Swiss chose tougher gun control laws, but not because they debated those laws and found they had merit in and of themselves.

And while I understand your new argument here, it's not clear to me if the recent gun misuse in Europe can even be traced back to Swiss gun control and open borders. Do you have any specific examples in mind, of gun misuse with a gun sourced from Switzerland?

 

[theprestige]

Another win for regulated coexistence using common sense.

I agree that it's a win for regulated coexistence. I'm not sure about the common sense, though. But the Swiss seem to be very pragmatic about the issue, at least.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

No complaints about being patronized.

This is not the argument given in the OP. I think it's perfectly reasonable take the arguments made and cited as they come. If you wanted me to take this argument instead of the one in the OP, then you probably should have made this argument in the OP.

Basically, in Europe people understand how sovereignty works and what not having border controls entails.
It wouldn't occur to people here that it needs to be explained.
TBH and with all due respect, having to explain this feels a bit like talking to a child. I know this is not quite fair since you come from a different culture where borders are not an important thing. I'm sure future generations in Europe will be as confused by the issue as you.

And of course, "we don't know what the result would have been if the law had been debated on its own merits" is exactly my point: The Swiss chose tougher gun control laws, but not because they debated those laws and found they had merit in and of themselves.

Ok, so how many swiss newspapers have you read before the referendum? How much Swiss TV did you watch?
Hmm?

And while I understand your new argument here, it's not clear to me if the recent gun misuse in Europe can even be traced back to Swiss gun control and open borders. Do you have any specific examples in mind, of gun misuse with a gun sourced from Switzerland?

It's like this: Suppose you want to cross a road as a pedestrian. You check to see if there's any cars and only go if you are sure that you will not be run over.
You don't do that because you personally were run over at that spot. You don't even do it because you know that anyone was run over at that particular spot. You know that you should do certain things to minimize the risk.
If you are ever run over you might decide that you should be more careful in the future. You will then be more careful everywhere, not just where you had your accident because you know it is not about that spot but about risk reduction.
Europe has decided to be more careful with guns. And that means not just those particular guns that were misused and not just guns by that manufacturer. All guns may be similarly misused and that means that all guns need to be handled in the more careful way.

 

[Senex]

Why doesn't anyone like the Swiss army?
Because they are all a bunch of tools.

How do you make a Swiss role?
Push their unarmed ass down a hill.

 

[theprestige]

Ok, so how many swiss newspapers have you read before the referendum? How much Swiss TV did you watch?
Hmm?

I read your OP. I assumed that the information you chose to put in the OP was the information you wanted us to consider and discuss. This I have done. It's not my responsibility to seek out information you wished us to consider but did not actually provide. If you're not getting the discussion you want, from the information you provided, that is a problem you will have to solve.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I read your OP. I assumed that the information you chose to put in the OP was the information you wanted us to consider and discuss. This I have done. It's not my responsibility to seek out information you wished us to consider but did not actually provide.

You need to take responsibility for your own mind. Not everyone will be as kind and honest as me. What if I simply hadn't bothered to correct you? You would have just ended up with a bunch of nonsense in your head.
Some people will even deliberately lie to you. Perhaps they will lie by omission.
Hold them accountable for it. But you must take charge of that process.

We put thieves in jail but we still lock our doors. And unlike stealing, disinformation is legal.


That said, it wasn't lack of information that laid you astray. You jumped to a bad conclusion. You should have sought or asked for more information.
Try to figure out what lead you to the mistake. Maybe you have some bad information in your head. There will be a lot, given your attitude. So find out where that came from and put them straight.

 

[smartcooky]

From the link in the OP.

I really know nothing about the country, but I don't think there will be police conducting searches of those homes they suspect of having unregistered guns.


Are the Swiss right wing anything like the American Tea Party?

Ranb

The Swiss Right wing party (SVP) is the biggest party in the Federal Assembly (analogous to the House in the US Congress). They hold 65 out of the 200 seats, and form part of the coalition government with three other parties. However they are a minority in the Council of States (analogous to the US Senate) where they have only 5 out of 46 seats.

Politically the SVP would be about the same as the rightmost parts of GOP. If you could imagine the Republican Freedom Caucus being a party on its own, that would be equivalent to the SVP. Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan would idealistically fit right into the SVP.

 

[3point14]

When you think about it, this is actually kind of a story about economic bullying.

You've made that so broad it could be applied to any international trade agreement. You sound like a brexiteer.

Being asked to follow the rules applicable to being in a a position from which one gains immense financial benefit is not 'bullying', it's being asked to follow the rules.

The Swiss don't have to be 'Bullied', they can always just cut ties with the EU and suffer the consequences thereof. The fact that the Swiss would probably lose financially from this is moot.

 

[smartcooky]

You've made that so broad it could be applied to any international trade agreement. You sound like a brexiteer.

Being asked to follow the rules applicable to being in a a position from which one gains immense financial benefit is not 'bullying', it's being asked to follow the rules.

The Swiss don't have to be 'Bullied', they can always just cut ties with the EU and suffer the consequences thereof. The fact that the Swiss would probably lose financially from this is moot.

THIS.

The Swiss following the EU rules is no more "bullying" than countries being bound by Hague Abduction Convention, to which New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the USA are signatories.

 

[theprestige]

THIS.

The Swiss following the EU rules is no more "bullying" than countries being bound by Hague Abduction Convention, to which New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the USA are signatories.

Switzerland isn't a signatory to the EU rules. Nor was this a case of the Swiss following Schengen Area rules or Dublin accord rules. This was explicitly unilateral rules change by Switzerland to preserve amicable relations with its neighbors.

 

[theprestige]

You've made that so broad it could be applied to any international trade agreement.

Most international trade agreements are about a formal agreement between two parties in order to increase mutual profits. Very few international trade agreements are about one party making changes to its domestic laws, for fear of the other party being mad at them.

I have, however, made it so broad that it could be applied to most international sanctions. Which is probably true, now that you mention it.

 

[arthwollipot]

Switzerland isn't a signatory to the EU rules. Nor was this a case of the Swiss following Schengen Area rules or Dublin accord rules. This was explicitly unilateral rules change by Switzerland to preserve amicable relations with its neighbors.

Yes, and?

 

[smartcooky]

Switzerland isn't a signatory to the EU rules. Nor was this a case of the Swiss following Schengen Area rules or Dublin accord rules. This was explicitly unilateral rules change by Switzerland to preserve amicable relations with its neighbors.

What seems to be forgotten with all this talk of "bullying" is that it is not the Swiss Government who decided to tighten the gun laws, its the Swiss people themselves. This was a National referendum in which 63.7% of the voters agreed to toughen its laws on firearms possession bring it in line with the new European Union legislation.

The Swiss are very engaged in their Democracy, and issues of national importance go directly to the people not their representatives. This means the "bullying" and warping of government votes against the will of the people due to lobbying and vested interests are very unlikely to happen there.

There were actually two issues voted on in this referendum; Corporate Taxes in relation to the old age pension, and the Arms Act

https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/1044...rmes-largement-acceptees-par-les-suisses.html

Rough translations

- The reform of corporate taxation related to the financing of the AVS (DFSA) and the revision of the law on arms were widely accepted by the Swiss On Sunday. According to the final results, "yes" was 66.4% for DFR and 63.7% for the Arms Act.

- All Cantons voted double "yes" at the polls with the exception of Ticino, which rejected the law on firearms at 54.5%. Approval of the Arms Act was greatest Basel-Stadt (75%) and Geneva (72.8%). Approval of the DFR changes was most popular in Vaud with 80.7% and least popular in Solothurn (58.6%).​

 

[rockinkt]

Ok. I will give you the lecture but don't complain about being patronized.

There are no border controls for people between the EU and Switzerland.
Think about what a border is. It is the line between two countries. Each of these countries can make its own laws without regard to the other. That's called sovereignty.
It may be legal for a person to possess a weapon in one country but not in the other. The same logic applies to all sorts of things like narcotics, hazardous materials. Then there are laws about taxes and standards and so on.
Think about this. Maybe one on one side of the border there is weak protection for intellectual property like brand names. Then one needs to intercept the counterfeit merchandise at the border or the brand owner will lose out on license fees.
Or maybe there is less drug enforcement. So drugs are interecepted at the border.
If a country wants to enforce its own laws on its territory then it needs to check whatever comes into its territory for compliance.

The EU and Switzerland have aligned their laws to the point where there was little to do at the border. So everyone could live with giving up border controls.

Unfortunately there has been some gun misuse which caused the EU to implement stricter gun control. Now the open border becomes an issue again. Its more liberal gun laws undermine EU sovereignty.

The obvious solution is to bring back border controls. Would an informed person call that "economic bullying"? Hmm?
As the swiss have now chosen to better control guns, that will no longer be necessary.

The border problem played a large role in the referendum. But there are many in Switzerland who favor stricter controls regardless. Eventually we don't know what the result would have been if the law had been debated on its own merits.

Please explain how EU member country Czech Republic's laws regarding firearms fit into your above quoted treatise.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Switzerland isn't a signatory to the EU rules. Nor was this a case of the Swiss following Schengen Area rules or Dublin accord rules.

and yet, it agreed to follow almost all of its rules.

This was explicitly unilateral rules change by Switzerland to preserve amicable relations with its neighbors.

and the Swiss did it without a public outcry - why are you more concerned with the sovereignty of Switzerland than the Swiss are?
Isn't that a bit presumptions?

 

[smartcooky]

Please explain how EU member country Czech Republic's laws regarding firearms fit into your above quoted treatise.

Please explain why this is in any way relevant. When the Czech Republic acceded to the EU, they required required a new law that was European Firearms Directive compliant. These new laws were passed in 2002. The Firearms Laws of the countries of the EU all do not have to be identical to each other, they simply need to meet the standards set by that directive.

European Firearms Directive is a law of the European Union which sets minimum standards regarding civilian firearms acquisition and possession that EU Member States must implement into their national legal systems.

The Member States are free to adopt more stringent rules, which leads to differences in the extent of citizens' legal access to firearms within different EU countries. ​

 

[smartcooky]

and yet, it agreed to follow almost all of its rules.

and the Swiss did it without a public outcry - why are you more concerned with the sovereignty of Switzerland than the Swiss are?
Isn't that a bit presumptions?

Indeed, as I stated in post #33, the Swiss Public themselves voted for this.

 

[3point14]

and yet, it agreed to follow almost all of its rules.



and the Swiss did it without a public outcry - why are you more concerned with the sovereignty of Switzerland than the Swiss are?
Isn't that a bit presumptions?

It's a second amendment itch, I think. The second amendment is so ingrained in the US consciousness that watching others freely give up their weapons causes a similar reaction to watching someone give up their right to free speech or a fair trial.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Please explain how EU member country Czech Republic's laws regarding firearms fit into your above quoted treatise.

The Czech republic is part of the EU. That means it has a say in how EU rules are made. Otherwise the reasoning applies.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Most international trade agreements are about a formal agreement between two parties in order to increase mutual profits. Very few international trade agreements are about one party making changes to its domestic laws, for fear of the other party being mad at them.

The way you put it, all trade agreements are about exactly that. You should read my post #19 again.

More information you are lacking is that the Schengen agreement is not a trade agreement.